|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 77
OCR for page 78
OCR for page 79
OCR for page 80
OCR for page 81
OCR for page 82
OCR for page 83
OCR for page 84
OCR for page 85
OCR for page 86
Representative terms from entire chapter:
observatory network
C H A P T E R F I V E
A Synthesis of Early Concepts of
the National Ecological
Observatory Network and a
New Vision
The committee strongly endorses NEONand suggests some refinement of its
implementation plan to ensure that it wo?~ldirovide the necessary
.
~nfrastr?~ct?~re e~icientlyfor elective large-scale environmental research.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored six work-
shops to outline detailed features of the National Ecological
Observatory Network (NEON) (NSF 2000 a,b,c, 2002 a,b,c).
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AlBS) then
prepared an overview report (AlBS 2003~. In addition, as
noted earlier in this report, NSF included a summary of its
vision of NEON in its F'Y2003-2004 budget request (
NEON: ADDRESSING THE NATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES
each group chosen to represent a different part of the discipline offered
their views of NEON. Moreover, unlike the AlBS report, which was
commissioned to synthesize the six workshops, our report is to evaluate
the conceptual foundations of a NEON-like network and to determine
whether NEON as currently conceived would provide the infrastructure
and logistical support needed to address ecological and environmental
questions of national concern. To evaluate a program as large and
complex as NEON, the committee assessed the ideas proposed in the
workshops and the synthesis of those ideas put forward by NSF (NSF
20023) and AlBS (AlBS 2003) and compared them with alternative
approaches to the implementation of NEON. We address that task in
this chapter.
Many excellent recommendations were presented in the six work-
shops, but a single unified concept of NEON did not emerge, largely
because not ad statements and visions of NEON's potential structure are
compatible. That is probably a result of the organization of the work-
shops, which each brought together one branch of the scientific commu-
nity to formulate individual viewpoints on the NEON concept. As
stated in Chapter 3, the differences and conflicts between ideas described
in the workshops make the evaluation of the third question in the
committee's charge difficult to answer: 'avoid NEON, as conceptualized
in the series of six community workshops, be able to provide infra-
structure and logistical support to address the ecological and environ-
mental questions of national concern?" We document here some of the
major differences among the publications about NEON and provide an
evaluation of the concept of NEON that is relevant to the third question
in our charge.
An example of differing or conflicting ideas about NEON is the
different published descriptions of the overall mission of NEON. The
AIBS report (AIBS 2003), the NSF F'Y2003-2004 budget request
(), and the 2002 NSF
summary of NEON (NSF 20021) ad paint NEON with slightly different
colors. They all describe important parts of the NEON vision, but they
also reflect the different foci of the different types of scientists at the
78
A Synthesis of Early Concepts of the National Ecological Observatory Network and a New Vision
workshops. Thus, it is not surprising that the reports do not speak with
. .
a single voice.
NSF's synthesis of those documents states that "collectively, the
network of observatories will allow comprehensive, continental-scale
experiments on ecological systems and will represent a virtual laboratory
for research to obtain a predictive understanding of the environment."
Such observatories, at which coordinated data collection and ecological
experiments could be conducted, was universally lauded by the federal
agencies and scientific societies represented at the public workshop and
Web forum (see Appendix C).
In March 1997, the Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources of the National Science and Technology Council proposed a
framework for "Integrating the Nation's Environmental Monitoring and
Research Networks and Programs." Its report made a strong case:
A fundamental improvement in the way that the United States
monitor its environment is required if we are to meet the chal-
lenges facing us during the next several decades. Current
monitoring programs do not provide integrated data across
multiple natural resources at the various temporal and spatial
scales needed to develop policies based on current scientific
understanding of ecosystem processes. ... tIn fiscal year 1995, ...
about $650 miDion] was focused on activities in about 30 major
Federal environmental monitoring and research networks and
programs. Although the associated programs, activities, and
networks were established in response to specific legislation
about specific resources and issues, they can be better integrated
to provide information needed for effective ecosystem manage-
ment. Similarly, the networks can be better integrated to provide
information synthesis across a range of spatial scales.
Later report by the Heinz Center (Heinz Center 2002) titled The
State of the Nation's Ecosystems indicated that relevant datasets were still
not integrated and that many data gaps existed:
In seeking data, we found a classic case of a glass that is both half
empty and half full. In applying the selection criteria outlined
79
NEON: ADDRESSING THE NATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES
above, we found adequate data for more than half of the selected
indicators, with trends or other context information on many of
these, allowing us to report meaningfully on many aspects of
ecosystem condition. However, substantial gaps remain, and
until and unless these gaps are fined, Americans wiD not have
access to a complete picture of the "state of the nations' eco-
systems.'
NSF's general concept of NEON would to some extent address
those monitoring issues, but NSF's vision focuses NEON more strongly
on helping ecology to become a predictive science. We acknowledge that
more-thorough and well-coordinated national environmental monitoring
is needed, but we conclude that the resources available to NSF would be
unable to fill the many identified gaps in national environmental moni-
toring (Heinz Center 2002) and that monitoring itself is less compatible
with the mission of NSF, which is to advance mechanistic understanding
and predictive ability in environmental science. Thus, we strongly
support NSF's vision that NEON's central role should be to facilitate
experimentation and observation for the advancement of environmental
science.
Although the committee was not charged to provide a complete
design and implementation plan for NEON. we offer here a few su~es-
tions designed to help NEON to achieve the potential articulated in
NSF's vision. The suggestions contain elements that flow from the work
of all six workshops. For instance, the overall structure of NEON as a
set of spatially distributed sensor arrays and experimental sites emerges
from aD the workshop reports. However, we also evaluate potential
alternatives for the structure and development of NEON in our assess-
ment of whether NEON could provide the infrastructure and logistical
support needed to address environmental challenges. Major differences
are highlighted below, and they are discussed briefly in the context of
each workshop report.
1. Physical structure of a NEON observatory: Each NEON
observatory was envisioned as a core and associated satellite sites in a
80
A Synthesis of Early Concepts of the National Ecological Observatory Network and a New Vision
given region (blame type) of the nation. Such observatories were to be
linked to form a single NEON network that spanned the continent.
Suggested alternative: Each observatory should focus on a major
. . , , ,, . , , ,~
.
environmental cnanenge instead ot a single blame and have multiple sites
providing a continentwide scope. The sites that constitute a NEON
observatory should be selected simultaneously so that they can address
optimally the major environmental challenges that the nation faces.
2. Observatory number and placement: Many documents on
NEON (NSF 2002d, AlBS 2003) discussed the possibility of having
16 regional observatories in North America based on a Forest Service
designation of 16 blames in the coterminous United States. Establishing
observatories based on terrestrial ecoregions fails to acknowledge that
freshwater and marine ecoregions are also of national importance.
Furthermore, ecoregions vary greatly in size, and some may have little
relevance to some environmental challenges.
Suggested alternative: Each observatory should focus on a central
research theme and contain sites whether terrestrial, freshwater, or
marine that are most relevant to that theme. We suggest a few criteria
for site selection of a theme-driven observatory.
Geographic distribution and coverage.
Integration of existing facilities.
Flexibility to accommodate other research themes and to be
expanded to meet future demands.
3. Growth ofthe network: NSF envisioned that NEON could
grow from two regional observatories until it met its purpose of providing
integrated data on the state and function of ecosystems in the United
States. However, the planning documents provide little information for
how NEON should grow, except that the network would grow via
selection of the best sites through a competitive review similar to that
used for selection of the current Long-Term Ecological Research
(LTER) sites. However, the differences in goals between NEON and
81
NEON: ADDRESSING THE NATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES
the LTER sites suggest that site selection for NEON should grow in a
different way especially because NEON sites need to function in an
integrated network and LTER sites are meant to function independently.
Initiating the NEON network with two sites in different biomes, as
planned by NSF, cannot immediately fill the national need for integrated
ecological data.
Suggested alternative:
The network should be designed in such a
way that even the first elements are built to fulfill the national network-
ing role. Each observatory would focus on a key environmental challenge
and would be built with continentwide canacitv to allow understanding
1 J
of key environmental issues on a scale appropriate to national-level
problems. The network could be initiated as one theme-driven observa-
tory with sites across the nation. Growth of the network would occur as
each new theme-oriented national observatory was built and set up to
focus on additional issues. New observatories would use some of the
facilities of former ones but probably would require serial investment in
.
infrastructure.
4. Funding: Funding to establish each individual observatory was
estimated at $20 million for construction plus about $3 million in
operation and maintenance costs. Budget development focused on the
individual observatory and did not address the funding requirements for
network-level administrative support and equipment, such as bio-
informatics synthesis centers or centers of taxonomic expertise. Individual
NEON projects were to be funded through NSF's competitive proposal
program, but it was not clear how core data collection and analysis would
be funded.
Suggested alternative: Funds for observatory infrastructure-
facilities, equipment, data and sample repositories should come from
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MRFEC)
account, and the amount of funds should reflect the demands of the
overall mission of the NEON observatory, not a planned funding formula.
Depending on the theme of the observatory, construction and mainte-
nance costs could exceed $20 and $3 million, respectively. Insufficient
82
A Synthesis of Early Concepts of the National Ecological Observatory Network and a New Vision
funding for construction and equipment acquisition could hinder NEON's
ability to achieve its goal of providing nationwide infrastructure to
address continental-scale questions. In addition, operational funds and
funds for individual research projects to be implemented within each
observatory should be made available by NSF. Research funds could be
made available through relevant existing programs or through a new
program designed for large-scare interdisciplinary research.
5. Informatics and synthesis: An informatics infrastructure was
seen to be critical to NEON's success, but no firm plans for the integra-
tion of different data streams or analyses have been articulated. The
informatics and synthesis center would ensure efficient data-sharing and
data-archiving. Furthermore, information collected from NEON
observatories could be disseminated for education purposes via the
bioinformatics and synthesis center.
Suggested alternative: Informatics and synthesis center is a pivotal
part of the basic NEON plan. Bioinformatics tools and experts would be
needed to develop new mathematical algorithms to decipher and inter-
pret large data streams. NEON should explore the latest applications of
data assimilation technologies (for example, four dimensional data
assimilation). Its bioinformatics center could either partner with or be
modeled after existing bioinformatics centers such as the National
Institutes of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information
which manages GenBank, the National Center for Ecological Analysis
and Synthesis, or the National Biological Information Infrastructure.
The envisioned informatics center could also include systematics data on
the nation's biodiversity and explore how modern informatic tools can
speed their identification and documentation.
6. Governance: It was envisioned that NEON would be governed
by several committee groups with responsibility for different aspects,
such as informatics and facility and program evaluation. Both centralized
and decentralized approaches were proposed in the workshops, possibly
because some workshop croups were not aware of the management
1 0 1
83
NEON: ADDRESSING THE NATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES
requirements for MREFC. The proposed operational governance
structure may result in a large bureaucracy that would hinder NEON
operations, rather than help. Although different suggestions were put
forward on NEON guidance, no groups specified how the governing
body or bodies would be supported and funded. To determine the
success and effects of NEON, it was recommended that NEON be
evaluated at both the observatory level and the network level. The third
workshop developed evaluation criteria for individual observatories, and
for the network as a whole (NSF 2000c). An individual observatory
would be evaluated with respect to such items as use by the scientific
community, quality of the research, ability to attract high-quality users,
and access to data. Network-level review would look at the gains
achieved in science, technology, data, education, and process.
Suggested alternative: The committee endorses NSF's proposal of a
NEON coordinating unit to oversee the implementation and operation
of NEON and to ensure integration of observatories. We recommend a
single scientific oversight committee, preferably formed by a neutral
body, such as a multiuniversity consortium. The committee would work
with NSF to ensure that adequate resources are available to sustain
NEON operation and that the goals of NEON are met. The committee
would also solicit input from the broad scientific community for designs
and improvement of NEON to ensure its effectiveness.
7. Education and outreach: NEON would present unprecedented
opportunities for education and outreach and for conveying the value and
relevance of environmental biology research to a large audience. NEON
observatories were to communicate information to the scientific commu-
nity, to local, regional and national decision-makers, to the general
public, and to the fuD range of students, from kindergarten to graduate
students. The committee agreed with those goals but found few details
on how education and outreach goals would be achieved and who might
be responsible for carrying out the plans.
a
Suggested alternative: Multiple systematic educational programs
should be integrated into NEON's plan so that program plans and
1 0 1
84
A Synthesis of Early Concepts of the National Ecological Observatory Network and a New Vision
facilities for education and outreach would be included from the incep-
tion of each observatory.
8. Partnerships: NEON would involve extensive partnering and
collaboration among many, often disparate, groups. The inclusion of
other government agencies already involved in scientific research, net-
working, land management, and so on was snecificaDv recommended.
.
1 J
However, there was no discussion of how or when it might be achieved.
A review of ad workshop participants also showed an absence of repre-
sentatives of federal agencies.
Suggested alternative: The next phase of NEON planning and
development should include plans for partnerships and collaboration
with other federal agencies. Establishing memoranda of understanding
is one way to facilitate collaboration. Such issues as access to facilities,
standardization of data collection, access to data and research coordina-
tion should be discussed.
Although the committee proposes modification of the NEON
implementation plan, it agrees with the fundamental concept of NEON
as stated by NSF and with most of the recommendations derived from
the six workshops. The committee hopes that its suggestions will help
fib the gap between the NEON mission and the implementation plan
that emerged from the workshops to fulfill the requirements of the
MREFC program.
The workshops provided crucial documentation and careful consid-
eration of essential building blocks from which a focused vision could
emerge. The documents included fundamental insights into how and
why a NEON network should function. By consideration of ad available
material, the committee tried to extract the best ideas from the disparate
set of recommendations and then focused and refined them to propose a
new, better-targeted, more-integrated vision for NEON.
85
