Richter, Daniel D. and Billings, Sharon A. and Groffman, Peter M. and Kelly, Eugene F. and Lohse, Kathleen A. and McDowell, William H. and White, Timothy S. and Anderson, Suzanne and Baldocchi, Dennis D. and Banwart, Steve and Brantley, Susan and Braun, Jean J. and Brecheisen, Zachary S. and Cook, Charles W. and Hartnett, Hilairy E. and Hobbie, Sarah E. and Gaillardet, Jerome and Jobbágy, Esteban G. and Jungkunst, Hermann F. and Kazanski, Clare E. and Krishnaswamy, Jagdish and Markewitz, Daniel and O’Neill, Katherine and Riebe, Clifford S. and Schroeder, Paul and Siebe, Christina and Silver, Whendee L. and Thompson, Aaron and Verhoef, Anne and Zhang, Ganlin (2018) Ideas and perspectives: Strengthening the biogeosciences in environmental research networks. Biogeosciences, 15. pp. 4815-4832.
Ideas_and_perspectives_Strengthening_the_biogeosci.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (5MB)
Abstract
Long-term environmental research networks are one approach to advancing local, regional, and global environmental science and education. A remarkable number and wide variety of environmental research networks operate around the world today. These are diverse in funding, infrastructure, motivating questions, scientific strengths, and the sciences that birthed and maintain the networks. Some networks have individual sites that were selected because they had produced invaluable long-term data, while other networks have new sites selected to span ecological gradients. However, all long-term environmental networks share two challenges. Networks must keep pace with scientific advances and interact with both the scientific community and society at large. If networks fall short of successfully addressing these challenges, they risk becoming irrelevant. The objective of this paper is to assert that the biogeosciences offer environmental research networks a number of opportunities to expand scientific impact and public engagement. We explore some of these opportunities with four networks: the International Long-Term Ecological Research Network programs (ILTERs), critical zone observatories (CZOs), Earth and ecological observatory networks (EONs), and the FLUXNET program of eddy flux sites. While these networks were founded and expanded by interdisciplinary scientists, the preponderance of expertise and funding has gravitated activities of ILTERs and EONs toward ecology and biology, CZOs toward the Earth sciences and geology, and FLUXNET toward ecophysiology and micrometeorology. Our point is not to homogenize networks, nor to diminish disciplinary science. Rather, we argue that by more fully incorporating the integration of biology and geology in long-term environmental research networks, scientists can better leverage network assets, keep pace with the ever-changing science of the environment, and engage with larger scientific and public audiences.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Additional Information: | Copyright of this article belongs to the authors |
| Subjects: | A ATREE Publications > G Journal Papers |
| Divisions: | SM Sehgal Foundation Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation > Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation Planning |
| Depositing User: | Ms Suchithra R |
| Date Deposited: | 21 Nov 2025 07:19 |
| Last Modified: | 21 Nov 2025 07:19 |
| URI: | http://archives.atree.org/id/eprint/1134 |
Dimensions
Dimensions