The Madison Workshop on a common future for Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER), Land Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) and the time series programs of the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) was unanimous in its agreement on the following:
Supporting recommendations include:
Funds that currently support the LMER program with fixed-term funding for current research sites should be used to support long-term, land-margin sites and that the designation of such sites be accomplished through national competition.
Oceanic or deep water ecosystems also merit long-term ecologic study and that support now invested in the time-series portion of the fixed-term JGOFS program should be directed to support oceanic LTER sites and that the designation of such sites be accomplished through national competition.
Finally, it was the view of the workshop that LMER and JGOFS did not represent the full spectrum of important marine ecosystems that require long-term programs for ecological study and it is recommended that new funds should be sought to establish LTER sites for a wider range of marine ecosystems.
More than 40 people from the broader scientific community submitted electronic comments through a homepage that was established to foster more extensive comments on this workshop's topic and these comments are appended to this report. The outside comments were generally consistent with the opinions of workshop participants and they have largely been incorporated into this report. They lend considerable support to the recommendations of the workshop.
On July 18 - 20, 1996 a workshop on a ``Common Future'' for Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER), Land Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) and Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) time series programs was held on the campus of the University of Wisconsin -Madison. The central question of the workshop was: Should the LMER and JGOFS time-series programs become continuing research efforts and should they be merged with the existing LTER program?
The work tasks presented to the workshop in regard to the LTER, LMER & JGOFS programs were to
Participants were unanimous in their support of the workshop's recommendation for an expanded program of Long Term Ecological Research which would include land-margin, oceanic and other marine systems. Sub-reports from the LTER, LMER, JGOFS time series program chairs and from an ad hoc group representing other marine ecological systems are included in our report
The LTER program is funded in the Long-Term Studies Program of the Division of Environmental Biology and by the Office of Polar Programs. The LTER program is a continuing research effort in that its sites have a reasonable expectation of continued funding at the end of each six-year funding increment if they have been reasonably successful in their ongoing efforts. The LMER program is funded jointly by Long-Term Studies Program of the Division of Environmental Biology and by the Division of Ocean Sciences. LMER sites are not long-term sites in that renewal after six years of funding is not designed into the program. The time-series sites in the JGOFS program are supported by the Division Ocean Sciences but the entire JGOFS program has been designed to have a finite duration and will end. Resources in JGOFS are intended for reallocation.
LTER, LMER and JGOFS time-series programs have a number of important parallels.
The LMER Coordinating Committee (1992) offers the following programmatic preamble, ``We are currently witnessing the greatest rate of environmental change in human history.'' It applies equally to each of these program. Some of the critical environmental issues addressed include:
The subject of the workshop is whether LTER, LMER and JGOFS time series programs should have a common future. Each of these programs emphasizes the extension of its results to broad areas. In the LTER, LMER and JGOFS programs there is extensive integration among participating sites and scientists by a Coordinating Committee. Each has a separately funded Network Office for program coordination. Each is engaged in multidisciplinary ecological research on extensive geographic areas and relies on spatially extensive, long-term data to support its findings. The scientific similarities among LTER, LMER, and JGOFS raises the question as to whether the three programs would not be better served by a common program administration.
In addition to the 24 participants who attended the workshop in Madison, Wisconsin the wider scientific community was given a chance to participate by submitting their views on the question of a common future for the programs to a workshop web page. They were
LTER
The URL for the Workshop is
http://atlantic.evsc.virginia.edu/~bph/LTER_LMER/workshop1.html
Participants at the workshop expressed a sense of the regarding the scientific necessity for long-term research. Several long-term trends in the condition of coastal and marine environments were presented along with examples of the state of the art understanding of the causal mechanisms of the observed long-term trends. The need for continued research into such long-term phenomena was detailed. Strong scientific justification was summarized that illustrated how an understanding of land-margin, oceanic and other marine ecological systems as well as terrestrial habitats requires research at time scales at the length of human generations at a minimum. Direct connections between trends in coastal and marine systems and widely recognized processes associated with global change were discussed.
We concluded that long-term study was essential to understand the trends that are occurring in coastal and marine systems. Such understanding of coastal and marine ecological systems will contribute to the solution of societal problems in an increasingly complex world. The importance of such systems for human society is particularly important in light of the large fraction of the worlds population that resides in coastal zones.
Finally, we concluded that, despite the workshops focus on long-term research, the study of ecological systems and processes at short time scales and in small areas and for a restricted subset of an ecosystem's species remain highly important and should not be reduced. The work of building funding bases to support critically needed long-term research must continue in conjunction with other ongoing efforts.
LTERs, LMERs and JGOFSs each participate in existing networks that provide inter-site administrative, governance and quality controls in a network context has data and information management systems that, while of different design, would be strengthened by cooperation. The LTER network is the largest of the three networks with the widest range of functionalities and responsibilities. Membership in the LTER network, while not constant, is rather stable, and leadership roles within the network are well defined. The existing LMER network is small (four members) and subject to compositional changes with each NSF competition. Stability and functionality of the network are constrained by the fixed-duration of the individual site programs. The JGOFS network has a functional administrative sub-set in the time-series programs. Membership has been stable but the program has a finite life.
The traditions of these three networked programs is that of cooperation and synergism. Conversions of LMER and JGOFS to an LTER status would not provide too many difficulties because the three programs are similar in many aspects. Recent sites added to the LTER network were welcomed by the existing sites and included in the leadership as evidenced by the recent election of a representative from a Palmer Antarctic site to the LTER Executive Committee.
A possible shortcoming if resources in support of fixed-term LMERs were converted to long-term programs might be a reduction of science focused on short or intermediate duration. An failure to include such efforts has certainly not been a characteristic of the existing LTER network. Other programs can serve this scientific need if LMER program resources become long-term. The need for long-term research in coastal and marine systems is certainly pressing regardless of this consequence.
The loss of JGOFS funding is already scheduled (2002). The consequences of a termination of the current time-series efforts within JGOFS was discussed in detail and is indeed part of the basis for formulating oceanic LTERs. A disconnection with the geophysical ocean science community was suggested but it was noted that connections between geophysical and ecological scientists for the existing LTER programs was strong; the sites are interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary in nature. Connections between the oceanic sites and their traditional research communities would be maintained by sites successful in competition for LTER status.
Implications of program termination and expansion of the LTER program are discussed in more detail and from the perspective of the existing programs following the presentation of the recommendation of the workshop.
During workshop discussions the issue of diversity of sites was considered. The history of the evolution of the LTER program was used for guidance. In the early NSF competitions for LTER sites, sites were selected for the network on the basis of proposal excellence rather than because of a ``diversity mandate'' to guide the selection process. In more recent competitions, the source of support for the sites played a role in selection of some sites (e.g. polar LTER sites), this reality was accepted and is similar to what might happen if LMER or JGOFS program funds were to be redirected to LTERs restricted to marine habitats. Within these constraints for competitive proposals, proposal excellence continues as be the key in the decision process.
The means of converting LMER and JGOFS to long-term programs was best handled by the program officers at NSF. Ultimately, however, the workshop felt quite strongly that such a conversion must be driven by an open competition among proposals. Conversion to LTER status without such competitions would damage the entire LTER program and would be counter-productive. Concerns and considerations regarding program conversion issues are addressed below in the perspectives on implementation.
We recognized that quality control of long-term programs requires NSF annual-reporting
requirements, stringent mid-term site evaluations and rigorous renewal-proposal reviews. In addition, it was noted that site advisory boards also have been used for oversight and mid-course corrections of programmatic activities. Large, long-term funded programs are in the spotlight; quality control and oversight are essential safeguards against even the perception of funding entitlement.
The most important objective of the workshop is addressed in its recommendation of the expansion of the LTER program to include land-margin, oceanic and other marine sites. Concerns of participants that caused them to be ``fence-sitters'' at the start of the workshop were resolved during the workshop based on the analysis of the information presented. Some aspects of the information base and rationale are presented below with the recommendations.
We recommend that NSF expand the LTER program through open national competition(s) for sites representing land margin, oceanic and other marine systems.
Support for this recommendation was unanimous. While there was no vote taken, each participant had floor-time to make comments on the recommendation and all expressed strong supported the proposed expansion of the LTER network. Following the discussion from the floor regarding the wisdom of the proposed action, details of the wording of the recommendation were worked out.
We extensively discussed the nature of the sites in the recommended expansion of the LTER program The wording, \Q\Qland margin, oceanic and other marine systems'', defines the bounds on the recommended competition and reflects probable funding sources. In a land-margin sites, the focus is on conversion of the existing land-margin, fixed-term LMER program to sustained, LTER-program status and the inclusion, through competition of sites with strong terrestrial marine linkages. The designation for oceanic sites for the LTER system reflects the prospects of funds to support time-series research in the open ocean, currently supported within the JGOFS program It reflects the need to study marine ecosystems that are integral to the largest scale of oceanic and atmospheric structure and dynamics. Finally, many marine systems of fundamental importance are neither deep-water oceanic nor linked to terrestrial systems through fluvial and estuarine processes; such systems should also merit consideration for future LTER program inclusion.
The scientific community engaged in long-term ecological study is hardly monolithic in its views. Indeed, the attending participants represented several research traditions each with its own history of programmatic relations with the National Science Foundation. While the participants were unanimous in their support for expansion of the LTER Program in the designated areas and for the inclusion of their research traditions into the LTER program, there were concerns about process and procedures in transition to long-term status in the LTER program. The details of these perspectives are detailed below for each program.
The expansion of the LTER Network is a reasonable and important objective and has been discussed extensively by LTER scientists for many years. The LTER-2000 document, a LTER Network planning document, identified this expansion as important for the Network as has the 10-Year Evaluation of LTER performed by the Risser Committee. The Network looks forward to the addition of land- margin and marine sites to better represent the diversity of systems in the U.S.
The expansion will cause changes and there will be some obvious ``growing pains'' associated with new and more people representing different disciplines. The following lists the concerns and recommendations for NSF to consider during the development of announcements of opportunity and following incorporation of new sites into the Network.
Standard Criteria for Evaluation. -- The new sites may be sites that have extensive data sets, research efforts, and experienced scientists as a result of previous funding as LMER or JGOFS efforts. It will be important to have a standard criteria for the way new sites develop proposals, proposal evaluation and following site evaluation. All sites should be treated the same way to avoid the possibility of having a LTER Network that is a combination of LTER, LMER and JGOFS programs and directions. This may mean that former LMER and JGOFS efforts adopt the directions currently given to LTER sites. It would be difficult to make substantial changes to the directions now given to LTER sites for site reviews and proposal resubmissions. It will be especially important for the panels that review these proposals to have clear guidelines on evaluation using the LTER criteria since the panels may have marine scientists or other disciplines that do not have LTER experience.
New Social/Cultural Impacts on the LTER Program. -- The addition of new disciplines will bring new insights, new technologies, and probably, new opinions to the way the Network should operate. We believe this infusion of new ideas will make us stronger; however, the early phases may cause some disruption of plans that have been developed in the recent years. NSF should make it clear to the PIs of successful proposals that these sites are being added to a LTER effort with 18 sites and a rich history. Change certainly is possible but well reasoned change that evolves over time as new and existing sites become familiar and educated about each other should be the objective.
Additional Costs and Efforts for the Network Office. -- The general budget of the Network Office amounts to ~$50,000 per site in the Network. These costs range from actual expenditures for site representatives to attend meetings to the staff in the Office that provide various services. Additional sites will increase those costs and efforts and NSF should develop the additional budget required rather than require the Office to do more with the same money (or less!). This increase in the number and types of sites, along with the new Office structure, provides new opportunities that the Network should be allowed to develop to the maximum or optimum. With new scientists added to the Network, we may increase the membership of existing standing committees, develop new standing committees, develop new outreach opportunities, involve more agencies in Network efforts, etc. This will take more coordination and logistical management as well as costs incurred. The initial stages of involvement of new sites in the Network may be the most costly. New sites need to be brought ``up to speed'' rapidly and that should involve many of their PIs attending Coordinating Committee meetings, Office staff visiting sites to develop articles, connectivity assessment, communication, site descriptions, etc.
Additional Efforts at Existing Sites. -- New sites mean new interactions, especially cross-site opportunities, that can be of value to the existing LTER sites. These new efforts will require time and may further reduce the effort that PIs can apply to their own LTER sites. There is concern among the current LTER community that these new opportunities, along with decreasing funds for current activities, is creating too much stress on the excellence of the research that must be performed on each site. The reputation of the LTER science is primarily based on the excellence of the science at the site.
Increased opportunities/participation in ILTER. -- New sites and scientists should provide a broader base for site to site and scientist to scientist interactions with International LTER efforts. The benefits could come from more people to write proposals to NSF and other agencies and taking advantage of existing international interactions (e.g., LMER interactions with coastal programs in Portugal). These would result in some additional efforts for the Network Office regarding upgrading information on the ILTER server, maintaining and increasing directory of sites and scientists, increased public relations and increased inquiries by scientists and agencies. This increase in effort should be covered with an increase in the Office budget that comes from an increased number of sites e.g., ~$50,000 per site.
Increased competition for cross-site funding and site supplements. -- The current LTER sites have benefited immensely from the technology supplements provided to maintain some ``minimum standard installation''. New technologies or upgrades to maintain equipment are needed to keep the idea of the ``minimum standard installation'' a viable one. With more sites, there is the possibility of increased competition if the supplement money stays constant. That translates into a general decrease in the capability to keep this ``minimum standard installation'' at the current level. This could be viewed as an increased cost to each site. This may be especially significant during the early years of the expansion if new sites need to have supplements to bring them up to the level of the other sites. Start-up costs should be sufficient to get any new site to the level of the other established sites. This should be stated in the announcement of opportunity. The cross-site competition also has been an excellent method for utilizing the excellence of site science in cross-site comparisons. Few sites can sacrifice science at their sites to develop significant cross-site comparisons. More sites competing for the same (or less) amounts of cross-site funding will reduce the chances for the current sites and could be thought of as an increased cost (or reduced opportunity) for current sites. Hopefully, with the possibility of new funding for these new sites from both GEO and BIO, additional funds may be available for supplements and cross-site research efforts.
Other issues. -- There are potential issues that are hard to define at this time. There are thresholds for meeting sizes that reduce efficiency or increase costs. I expect that the large Coordinating Committee meetings with the expanded network could involve 75 - 80 individuals that would prevent us from using certain field stations (low cost) or cause us to hold meetings in hotels (increased costs/individual). Simply finding a room large enough to have a meeting that large will be more difficult and may reduce the opportunity for certain sites to host a meeting of this type. This could affect the rotation among LTER sites that we try to develop to keep all sites informed of site science. We do not think this negative aspect is sufficient to outweigh the value of the expanded network; however, it does illustrate the changes in planning that may be required.
The ecosystems of the coasts of oceans and of the Great Lakes are changing rapidly as an immediate result of rapid increases in populations and economic activity in the coastal zone, land-use changes, and river engineering. In fact, in the U.S. some 75% of the population now live within 50 miles of the coast. During the 1980's, the community of coastal research scientists pointed out the high rate of change of coastal ecosystems world-wide and the need for basic understanding if these systems were to be managed. In addition to the immediate cause of change, long-term effects are expected from changes in sea-level, climate, CO2 concentrations, and atmospheric inputs. The result of all these changes are modifications in the timing and magnitude of freshwater, sediment, organic matter, pollutants, and nutrients entering the coastal waters.
In the 1980's and today, most of the research carried out on coastal regions in the U.S. is fragmented, not coordinated, and seeks management answers to immediate crises through the collection of monitoring data. There are few data on processes and practically no synthesis. To improve the situation, the scientific community held an NSF-sponsored workshop in 1987 and called for fundamental research on change in the land-margin region of coasts through a series of large, integrated, multidisciplinary projects
in different coastal regions. The National Science Foundation funded the first sites in 1988: equal support came from the Division of Environmental Biology and the Division of Ocean Sciences. An announcement of opportunity states ``The goal of LMER is to increase the understanding of: 1) the organization and function of land-margin ecosystems; 2) the linkages between these systems and adjacent terrestrial and marine systems; and 3) the impacts of major natural environmental perturbations in these regions. The LMER research emphasizes major ecological questions that stress linkages between terrestrial and coastal ecosystems. The work seeks to understand the causes of major ecological and environmental changes that influence land-marine environments, and how the populations, communities, and ecosystems respond to these changes.''
LMER Sites. -- Five competitions have been held and six different sites have been funded, some twice. Each of the LMER studies has included the following elements: coordinated multidisciplinary research, experimental studies across a range of temporal and spatial scales, modeling, and comparative approaches in different ecosystems. In mid-1996, there are three LMER projects funded for six years (until 1999) and one four-year project ending in September 1996. Each of the six-year projects receives $500,000 per year. There is no expectation of long-term funding and each must enter a general competition at the end of their grant period.
Coordination Office -- A Coordination Office, set up in 1992, receives about $50,000 per year for each site. The office organizes a number of meetings each year of the LMER Coordination Committee (one representative from each sites), organizes an annual meeting of all LMER scientists, promotes comparative research across sites, and publishes a directory and newsletter.
LMER Vision -- Goal: to achieve a predictive understanding of the effect of human and climate forcings on coastal biota and ecosystems. Where: A number of sites will be developed where it is possible to understand the physical and ecological processes and interactions of land and land-margin systems leading to changes in the coastal zone. This network of sites will encompass a wide range of freshwater and tidal forcings and geomorphology, a wide range of watershed land-use types, and a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial biogeographic provinces and climatic regions.
How: To achieve a level of understanding that goes beyond individual site knowledge will require multidisciplinary and comparative approaches, as well as modeling and experimental studies. Across-agency collaboration, for example by NSF, NOAA, NASA, USGS, and EA, will bring adequate resources for long-term environmental data collection and data base development throughout the network, experimental manipulations, process studies, modeling, and the involvement of other basic and applied projects attracted by the data and understanding.
Applicability: As a result of understanding shared through the network and of comparisons carried out across the wide range of sites, the models developed will be applicable to coastal regions in many parts of the world and will be used to formulate social and economic policies for coastal management.
Why a Merger? -- The LMER program has been successful; it addresses important scientific and societal questions, good research has been carried out, many papers have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (see LMER bibliography in the LMER Home Page), and a number of comparative studies are underway. One problem has been the lack of visibility at NSF as a small program and as a program studying the interface of the land and water. Coastal research is not the first priority of any division at NSF and there is concern that it falls through the cracks at the funding panels. A second problem is that LMER is not long-term. Clearly the questions being asked are large in scale and, like other change programs, require longer term research to see and investigate change as well as at least four years to get beyond the site description to the process studies. One result has been the exclusion of LMER from consideration in the recent intergovernmental discussions about long-term monitoring sites. Another result is that it is very difficult to entice other projects to carry out research at the LMER sites. A third problem has been the governance structure that calls for comparative and cross-site research and then places the same sites in direct competition for further funding.
The LTER program successfully addresses a number of these problems. It is both visible and successful with support across various levels of NSF. It does a good job of encouraging long-term research questions and long-term research projects while holding the quality of the science to a very high level through reviews and competition. It has developed a method of renewal in which projects compete against themselves instead of against other projects.
Concern I: Continuation of Land-Margin Theme and Critical Mass. -- The coastal scientific community has developed justification and funding over the past decade for a network of research sites each of which studies change in coastal waters and the adjoining land areas that contribute to the change. This type of research, a study integrating changes on land with changes in the ecology of the near-coastal waters, is suitable for LTER research and we recommend that this general theme be continued in four or more sites in the new augmented LTER program. Further, these land-margin designations must be continued within the LTER program indefinitely.
The comparative approach within coastal ecosystems is an important tool for moving towards more generally applicable models and towards larger spatial scales. To make this work properly, a number of land-margin sites are needed across a wide variety of climate and biotic gradients. These coastal ecosystems are as variable as are different types of forests in the terrestrial systems and ideally at least ten sites are necessary for a critical mass. Accordingly, we recommend that NSF and the LTER program should strive to increase the number of land-margin sites to cover the geographic and biotic range of the coastal U.S.
Concern II: Present Projects and Future Competitions. -- What should be the timing of a phased merger? The three sites now funded for four more years should complete their projects and then will be able to take part in a general competition for LTER land-margin projects. One LMER project will end soon and a competition should be held as soon as possible for one, and ideally for more than one, land-margin projects. As a part of a transition, representatives of the present LMER sites should attend the LTER Coordinating Committee meetings so that the land-margin viewpoint and problems are well-represented.
Concern III: Interdivisional Funding to Continue. -- The Ocean Sciences Division of NSF will be more and more involved with longer term research programs. It is important that the Ocean Sciences Division continue to co-fund the LTER land-margin research so that this type of research will remain a part of its logical home, DEB and OCE.
Concern IV: Coordination Function of LMER Program. -- One of the very positive features of the LMER program has been the Annual All-Scientists Meeting. This meeting has stimulated the comparative aspects of LMER by making all of the scientists aware of the on-going projects, through bringing together the graduate students on the projects, and by including specific workshops designed to address questions of methods, of approach, and of controls of processes that cut across all sites. As the LTER program has no large meeting of this type at the present time, we recommend that the LTER reinstate such a meeting.
The present LMER Coordination Office has catalyzed cooperative and comparative studies amongst the LMER and other sites. In addition, it has promoted coastal science and LMER-type research within various government agencies. These functions must be preserved and consideration given as to how to make this happen when the LMER Coordination Office is merged with the LTER Network Office. Until all the LMER is transferred, there will remain a need for coordination and meetings as the three remaining sites will still be LMERs. One solution is to form a land-margin subnetwork within LTER that would continue the contacts with government agencies and continue to hold meetings of all the aquatic sites. This would continue until the present projects are completed. The question of whether or not to continue with such a subnetwork can be resolved over the next few years.
Concern V: The Fate of Ongoing International Cooperation. -- The LMER program scientists have been active in promoting the International LTER effort. This should continue and fit within the LTER Network. In addition, the IGBP Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ) Program, active in Canada and Europe, is interested in cooperative and comparative efforts with LMER. This should be encouraged and a subcommittee within LTER should be set up to maintain the LOICZ connection.
Concern VI. New Responsibilities for the LTER Land-Margin Projects. -- When the new land-margin LTER sites joint the network, provision should be made for funding to help them meet the minimum standard installation of remote sensing images, computer equipment, and software of the existing sites. One of the differences between an existing research project and an LTER project is that there has been no formal requirement for the maintenance of a data base. Some of the sites do place all of their data into the national oceanographic data base system or have developed their own database and WWW site for data access. In any case, the development of a long-term data base has to be a requirement for the new sites. It is also true that existing LTER sites have built up the capability for constructing and storing a data base over an extended period of time and have received a number of moderate-sized equipment grants to carry this out. A mechanism must be developed to deal with this problem, perhaps an equipment supplement for new sites for the first two years.
Background -- A comprehensive understanding of the global carbon cycle is required to address contemporary scientific issue related to the atmospheric accumulation of greenhouse gases and their cumulative effects on global environmental change.Consequently detailed in situ investigations of terrestrial and marine ecosystems are necessary prerequisites for developing a predictive capability for environmental variability and the effects of human-induced perturbations.These investigations need to address the interdisciplinary connections between physics, chemistry and biology and, in each ecosystem, address broad questions regarding the distribution, abundance, diversity and control of key plant, animal and microbe populations and interactions with their habitats. Ideally, these field investigations should be conducted at strategic sites that are representative of large biomes or in regions that are likely to exhibit substantial interannual variability over large areas. Furthermore, these studies should be conducted for at least several decades, in order to distinguish natural variability from that induced by human activities.
In spite of their recognized importance, systematic, long-term biogeochemical observations of oceanic habitats are rare. The oceans play an integral role in the regulation of climate on time scales from days to millennia. As reservoir of heat, they directly affect the state and movement of the atmosphere and climate. As the largest repository of water, oceans are fundamental in the global hydrologic cycle. The annual exchange of carbon dioxide gas between the oceans and the atmosphere is of the same magnitude as the annual terrestrial exchange and the oceans likely absorb a large fraction of the carbon dioxide introduced to the atmosphere by human activities (Sarmientoet al., 1990). Through the release of dimethyl sulfide and the production of sulfate aerosols, the oceans may also affect the heat balance of the earth by modification of atmospheric albedo and light scatter (Charlson et al.,1987). With these important roles and many others, the dynamics of ocean systems provide mechanisms for feedback between the ocean and the long-term climate. Some of these feedbacks may also interact with the human modifications of the atmosphere, with the potential to both exacerbate and moderate the hypothesized human-induced changes to the climate system.
The fundamental role of the oceans in climate is one reason for the continued and expanded study of these systems, particularly in recent decades as the public concern about climate change has increased. Extreme weather in the United States, associated with the 1982-1983 El Nino event, prompted an expanded study of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon and resulted in the greatly expanded understanding that exists today. Still, just a few ENSO events have been observed with modern technology. Similar public concerns, although not as tightly linked to demonstrable climate features, have prompted a dramatic expansion of other global change research programs, again with a substantial emphasis on ocean processes. Biogeochemical time series observations will open windows allowing observations of key ocean processes at heretofore neglected time scales, ranging from hours to decades. At present most of these windows remain closed, or have not yet been constructed.
The Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) was established in 1987 to improve our understanding of the oceanic carbon cycle and to quantify the exchanges of carbon with the atmosphere, the sea floor and the continental boundaries (SCOR, 1987). This program has five of major components. The ``Process Studies'' are international, multiship, multi-investigator, interdisciplinary investigations of a specific ocean region in an attempt to understand the processes that operate in that particular region. They are limited in time-scale to generally less than one year, but make some attempt to understand spatial variability and to include a broad suite of measurements and investigations of specific rates and processes. The JGOFS ``Global Surveys'' are concentrated on the addition of some biogeochemical measurements to the Global Survey cruises of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) and other investigations to understand global scale patterns related to ocean circulation. ``Data Assimilation, Modeling and Synthesis'' play an important role in transferring the information and understanding from the individual JGOFS research efforts into a more general context, with the ultimate goal of a predictive capability. Finally, a Data Management component seeks to make project data easily accessible to the scientific community and ensure secure archiving after the lifetime of the program.
The Time Series Component and the LTER Program -- The Time Series component is most relevant to the LTERP program. In 1988, the US National Science Foundation funded the establishment of time-series stations in the North Atlantic Ocean near Bermuda and in the North Pacific Ocean near Hawaii under JGOFS and WOCE auspices. As of 1995,there were at least three other JGOFS time-series studies in progress: A French effort at Kergulen Island in the southern Indian Ocean, a joint German-Spanish measurement program in the eastern North Atlantic Ocean near the Canary Islands and a joint German-Chilean station in the eastern South Pacific Ocean off the coast of Chile. Several additional ocean time-series research efforts conducted outside the context of the IGBP-JGOFS and WOCE programs are also underway, but few have the physical-biogeochemical focus of the Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT) and Bermuda Atlantic Time-series Study (BATS). Collectively, the seoceanic time-series research efforts have provided an unprecedented view of oceanic variability on a variety of time scales from days to decades.
The ``Time-Series Studies'' at Bermuda and Hawaii, are focused on the seasonal to decadal time-scale and are localized at each specific station. The core set of measurements is similar to those in a Process Study. The programs have each begun to provide a coherent picture of the oceanic carbon and nutrient cycles in the central gyres of the open sea and the linkage between these cycles and the biological, chemical, physical and optical processes that control them. The significant interannual and decadal variability in the physical environment also allows us to examine the longer-term relationships between the physical forcing and biogeochemical response. The BATS and HOT programs sample the ocean on biweekly to monthly, 5-day cruises on intermediate-sized oceanographic research vessels, a strategy that resolves the major seasonal patterns, interannual variability and decadal patterns. Although time-series research is closely related to monitoring and the JGOFS stations have some monitoring role, the explicit goal of the US JGOFS time-series research is to obtain an understanding of the basic ocean processes that control the biogeochemistry on these time-scales. The ocean monitoring function is related to the documentation of change over decades, partially in the hope that putative climate changes or the incremental changes in biogeochemistry associated with ocean feedbacks will become apparent. The time-series also play a crucial role in the modeling efforts by providing a consistent, ongoing program for testing and validation of the time-dependent model currently under development.
Site Administration and Oversight -- The JGOFS Time series sites are administered jointly by the local PI's and by the JGOFS Scientific Steering Committee. The SSC currently has 16 members drawn from various academic institutions and government laboratories, plus an Executive Committee with 4 additional members. Also, the leaders of the time series, process studies, modeling and survey components are ex-officio members of the SSC, and with the Executive Committee form an ExecPlus group which guides the routine management of JGOFS. The ExecPlus meets about twice a year, and subgroups usually meet fortuitously when at other venues (scientific meetings etc.). The SSC at large provides longer-term and scientific guidance to the program. It meets about 3 times every two years. A separate Oversight Committee has the specific charge of guiding the time series program, assessing issues of measurement quality and consistency, data delivery, etc. It meets at each site about every 2-3 years. Finally, intersite visits by PI's, project scientists and technicians are supported by Project office funds. A joint Time series Symposium has been held, and an initial volume of TS findings has been published. The cumulative costs of these activities directly applicable to time series site operations averages $25-50K annually. US JGOFS also participates in the International JGOFS Program, which is a core project of the IGBP.
Benefits of Merger into the LTER Network -- JGOFS is drawing to a close by 2003 with no obvious successor programs yet in the wings. However, from the beginning, the scientists involved in the time-series stations, and the members of our oversight committees, have recognized that many of the science questions asked at the time-series stations became even more relevant when considered on decade time-scales. This is the inherent time-scale of many of the natural climate cycles and it is certainly the time-scale of the anthropogenic changes. To address these time-scales requires that we study the system consistently over those periods, much as the data from Hydrostation S, CalCoFI, Continuous Plankton Recorder Surveys, and Keeling Mauna Loa CO2 sampling have given us such insights over the past 4 decades. The BATS and HOT time-series are well on their way to opening the decadal window for the kinds of biogeochemistry questions at the heart of JGOFS. At the same time, the two stations have allowed nearly 100 scientists to conduct independent, small, single-few investigator projects of their own design in the context of a wider biogeochemical program and the rich history of the two time-series datasets. This too is a community asset that we feel has broad value for open-ocean oceanography. In fact, we would argue that the establishment of more time-series stations in other regions, particularly coastal zones, would compliment the two oceanic sites and provide this same rich context for work in other waters.
LTER Benefits from Potential Oceanic Sites -- The benefits to LTER are obvious. Marine sites in general are under represented in LTER, and there are no open ocean sites; hence the ecosystems representing 70% of the planetary surface is not yet addressed in the program. The JGOFS sites, with a decade of experience, established protocols, instrumentation, historical databases and data management procedures, constitute a resource which can readily join the LTER network with little transitional difficulty.
The ocean science community in general, and the JGOFS Program in particular, have developed advanced data management capabilities, and has fully integrated the concept of rapid, free and open data accessibility into its routine operations. Both sites cooperate with the JGOFS Data Management Office in Woods Hole, publish annual hard copy data reports, and make data available via the World Wide Web and anonymous ftp. We believe that JGOFS has much to offer to LTER in this important area.
Both sites have active modeling components and through the open data policies have served as valuable sources of data for outside model development and validation. Transition issues and concerns.
Funding and Other Support Logistics -- Open ocean operations are inherently expensive and demanding to conduct. The core observational and analytical programs at each site currently cost about $1M annually. This does not include ship costs provided separately by NSF or scientific oversight and administrative coordination provided through the JGOFS Program Office in Woods Hole. Merger into LTER will entail addition of new scientific elements to address LTER core areas, and this will require additional support. Some reorganization of core operations after the end of JGOFS in 2003 will allow reallocation of the core support into new areas. Some of the physical and climate-related observations may derive future support through other programs including CLIVAR and GOOS, and state and private sources. The most important concern is maintenance of regular sampling cruises. Both stations have lost sampling dates due to temporary lapses in ship availability. A mechanism will need to be developed to ensure long-term provision of shiptime to avoid compromising the time series.
Recommendations.
1. Active planning should commence immediately for merger of the BATS and HOT sites into the LTER Network. The JGOFS sites should be granted affiliate LTER status to facilitate collaboration.
2. Links between the HOT, BATS, JGOFS and LTER Web Sites should be set up.
3. Representatives of the JGOFS time series should be invited to join the LTER Coordinating Committee and attend its meetings (and vice-versa?).
4. The JGOFS Data Manager should be invited to an LTER data manager's meeting and links between the LTER and JGOFS data management offices should be established.
Background and Context -- The coastal ocean of the U.S. includes four general regions: the continental shelves and slopes; estuaries and bays; shoreline regions; and, the Great Lakes. This large and diverse area includes or is bordered by 431 counties in 30 states with over 50% of the U.S. population. It is a region of overwhelming economic, ecological and aesthetic importance to the nation. It is a region of great growth: by 2010, coastal populations will have grown from 80 million in 1960 to more than 132 million, the largest increase in residential and business related construction of the U.S. The coast is perceived as an area of significant environmental stress and increasing public concern due to pollution problems, habitat loss and degradation, and economic loss due to storms and disappearing fisheries.
The coastal ocean, on a per-unit basis, is the most productive region of the marine environment. The structure of this ecosystem helps determine the fate of many of the major and minor chemical constituents that enter the ocean. In turn, chemical and physical influences help determine ecosystem structure. Rising sea levels associated with global warming could potentially severely impact coastal ocean ecosystems by altering land-ocean interactions, coastal productivity and marine biodiversity.
Long-term Change and the Coastal Ocean -- Evidence has accumulated from a spectrum of coastal and continental margin marine ecosystems for long-term changes that cannot be resolved or understood by conventional short-term investigation. These systems include major eastern and western boundary current pelagic ecosystems, rocky intertidal, subtidal marine, continental shelf ecosystems, coral reefs, deep sea benthos, mangrove swamps, and others. In many of these environments a substantial research base exists that could readily be amplified and extended into successful LTER research sites.
The coastal ocean is a region of high temporal and spatial physical, chemical and biological variability because of its nature as a boundary region between continent, ocean and atmosphere. Consequently, localized or short-term measurements can provide misleading indications of the state of the environment or the causes of fluctuations. Long time series are required to unravel and apportion sources of variation and to monitor changes in the ecosystem. They can resolve long time scale variability such as El Nino in a way that is impossible for normal, process-oriented studies. At the same time, they can capture rare but energetic events such as floods, severe winter storms and hurricanes, not usually observed using short-term observations. These rare events can dominate some phenomena such as sediment transport and significantly alter species diversity for years after the event. Long time series are needed in many cases to establish with statistical confidence, causes of variability, e.g. natural vs. anthropogenic. Long time series can be used to test ideas, generate new hypotheses and drive models.
The Need for Coastal LTERs -- The diversity of coastal marine environments provides an opportunity for validation and testing of ecological principles and concepts that extend across different biomes. Conceptual ideas that may arise in one environment can be evaluated in several others. Many ecological processes (e.g., primary productivity, levels of disturbance, biological diversity) vary along predictable gradients from nearshore marine environments to the oligotrophic deep ocean. These gradients should be exploited in the design and selection of new LTER sites, to maximize the ability to test and evaluate different theories. The inclusion of LTER sites on continental shelves and slopes would create new, exciting research platforms for interdisciplinary science. In addition, the opportunity for increased exchange of information between the community of terrestrial, limnological and marine scientists in the LTER network would further the intellectual rigor and breadth of ecological research and theory.
One way to categorize continental margins in thinking about the need for future LTER sites in the coastal zone is by dominant physical processes. The logic of this grouping is that physical processes can determine the supply of nutrients, recruitment of animal populations, determine periodicity of episodic events and biodiversity. For example:
The flora and faunal diversity, nutrient cycling and productivity of these coastal environments are as different as from each other as prairie, desert and forest terrestrial environments. The physical medium, seawater, structures the environment and provides the means of nutrient supply, plant and animal dispersal and recruitment. These diverse coastal environments will allow interesting contrasts to terrestrial LTERs the synthesis of which will advance our understanding of ecosystem science.
There are a number of potential partners who would likely participate with coastal LTER studies. Many coastal states have monitoring activities which collect data on the coastal margins. Coastal LTERs could utilize the data from these efforts thereby increasing their suite of environmental information. Federal programs through NOAA, USGS, Army Corps of Engineers, NASA, EPA, MMS and ONR have ongoing efforts in the coastal margins which could be linked to new LTER sites. Within NSF, the GLOBEC (Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics) program studies the effects of climate change on the distribution, abundance and production of marine animal populations. The NSF CoOP (Coastal Ocean
Processes) program goal is to obtain a new level of quantitative understanding of the processes that dominate the transports, transformations and fates of biologically, chemically and geologically important matter on the continental margins. Both GLOBEC and CoOP programs have strong interest in long time series measurements in coastal waters and would greatly benefit from the addition of coastal LTER sites. In addition, planned NSF activities on harmful algal blooms and biodiversity could coordinate with coastal LTER sites in planning their research initiatives. In summary, coastal LTER sites will provide a platform for rich and diverse intellectual interaction for both State and Federal research programs.
It is clear that the addition of land-margin, coastal and oceanic sites to the LTER network would firmly affix the stamp of ``global ecology'' to the resulting program. The current prospect of urban LTERs is another important aspect to the research infrastructure that is in the offering. The fast track for the development of the ILTER program throughout the world adds to this prospect. It would be a major accomplishment. We are often ask ourselves the question -- Will the proposed activity increase our scientific infrastructure and permit new advances in the science? The answer regarding the recommended expansion of the LTER program is yes.