Ecological Science and Sustainabilityfor a Crowded Planet

21st Century Vision and Action Plan for theEcological Society of America

Report from the Ecological Visions Committee*to the Governing Board of the Ecological Society of America

April 2004

*Margaret A. Palmer1, Emily S.Bernhardt2, Elizabeth A. Chornesky3,Scott L. Collins4, Andrew P. Dobson5, Clifford S. Duke6, Barry D. Gold7,

Robert. Jacobson8, Sharon Kingsland9, Rhonda Kranz6, Michael J Mappin10,M. Luisa Martinez11, Fiorenza Micheli12, Jennifer L. Morse1, Michael L Pace13, Mercedes Pascual14,

Stephen Palumbi12, O.J. Reichman15, Alan Townsend16, and Monica G. Turner17

www.esa.org/ecovisions

Executive SummaryEnvironmental issues will define the 21st Century, as will a world with a large human population andecosystems that are increasingly shaped by human intervention. The science of ecology can and shouldplay a greatly expanded role in ensuring a future in which natural systems and the humans they includecoexist on a more sustainable planet. Ecological science can use its extensive knowledge of natural systemsto develop a greater understanding of how to manage, restore, and create the ecosystems that can deliverthe key ecological services that sustain life on our planet. To accomplish this, ecologists will have to forgepartnerships at scales and in forms they have not traditionally used. These alliances must implement actionplans within three visionary areas: enhance the extent to which decisions are ecologically informed; advanceinnovative ecological research directed at the sustainability of an over-populated planet; and stimulatecultural changes within the science itself that build a forward-looking and international ecology.

New partnerships and large-scale, cross-cutting activities will be key to incorporating ecologicalsolutions in sustainability. We recommend a four-pronged research initiative, to be built on new andexisting programs, to enhance research project development, facilitate large-scale experiments anddata collection, and link science to solutions. We emphasize the need to improve interactions amongresearchers, managers, and decision makers. Building public understanding of the links betweenecosystem services and human well-being is essential. We urge the development of a major publicinformation campaign to bring issues and raise awareness of ecological sustainability before thegeneral public.

Specific recommendations for each visionary area will support rapid progress. Standardization ofdata collection, data documentation, and data sharing is long overdue and should be kick-startedthrough a data registry, easy access to metadata, and graduate and professional training of ecologistsin ecoinformatics. A rapid response team that draws on ecological expertise in responding tolegislative and executive branch proposals would result in a larger role for ecological knowledgeand ecological scientists in the legislative and policy processes that impact sustainability. We must developresources that will help ecologists and collaborators from other sciences work together more effectively. Ameeting of key leaders in research, management, and business should be convened to produce a plan tocreate reward systems for ecological researchers and educators, as well as to foster collaborations. Weneed more global access to ecological knowledge. This effort could be started through routine translationof key ecological articles from non-English to English and vice versa. In addition, strategies to ease theexchange of students, managers and practitioners among institutions in various countries should beimplemented.

The three visionary areas and the recommendations to achieve them will provide a framework foradvancing ecological research and ensuring it plays a key role in public and private discourse. Themost critical vision area is the first: building an informed public. The results of simultaneouslyaddressing our recommendations for the three visionary areas will be an ecological science marked bystrong regional and global partnerships that will be instrumental in the move toward a more sustainablefuture for ecosystems and the humans they support.

2

Committee Member Addresses: 1Department of Entomology, Universityof Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-4454, mpalmer@umd.edu; 2De-partment of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC; 3P.O. Box 22665,Carmel, CA; 4Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albu-querque, NM; 5Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,Princeton University, Princeton, NJ; 6Office of Science Programs, Eco-logical Society of America, Washington, DC; 7The David and LucilePackard Foundation, Los Altos, CA; 8U.S. Geological SurveyCERC,Columbia, MO; 9Department of the History of Science and Technology,Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; 10University of Calgary,Kananaskis Field Stations, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 11Departamento deEcologia Vegetal, Instituto de Ecologia, A.C., Xalapa, Mexico; 12Depart-ment of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Hopkins Marine Sta-tion, Pacific Grove, CA 93950; 13Institute of Ecosystem Studies,Millbrook, NY; 14Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Uni-versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; 15Department of Ecology, Evolu-tion, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA;16Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Ecologyand Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO; 17De-partment of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 2

History and Approach of the Ecological Visions Committee ......................................... 5

The Need for an Action Plan .................................................................................................. 7

VISION 1: ................................................................................................................................ 10Action Areas for Informing Decisions with Ecological Knowledge (ID) .............. 11

Area A: Integrate advances in ecological knowledge into policy and management decisions that affect ecological sustainability ..................................................... 11Area B: Foster a thoughtful public today and educate generations of tomorrow so that the best ecological knowledge informs individual choices about sustainability. ....................................................................................................... 14

Summary: Informing Decisions ...................................................................................... 18

VISION 2: ................................................................................................................................ 19Action Areas for Advancing Innovative and Anticipatory Research (AR) .............. 20

Area A. Build the intellectual and technical infrastructure for ecology. .......................... 20Area B. Create new incentives to recognize and encourage anticipatory and innovative research ............................................................................................. 25Area C. Promote the standardization of data collection, data documentation, and data sharing. .................................................................................................. 27

Summary Innovative and Anticipatory Research ..................................................... 29

VISION 3: ................................................................................................................................ 30Action Areas for Stimulating Cultural Changes for the Ecological Sciences (CC) ... 31

Area A. Capture, translate and disseminate knowledge on successful collaboration. .... 31Area B. Broaden the human and disciplinary dimensions of ecology. ............................. 32Area C. Forge international linkages among ecological scientists and globalize access to ecological knowledge. ......................................................................... 34

Summary Cultural Change ........................................................................................... 36

Literature Cited..................................................................................................................... 37

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 41

Appendix 1: Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................ 43

Appendix 2: Summary of Committee Meetings .............................................................. 45

Appendix 3: Ecological Visions Breakfast Briefings ..................................................... 48

Appendix 4: Summary of Responses to the Web-based Survey ..................................... 51

4

History and Approach of the Ecological Visions Committee

After significant input from our membership andmany individuals and organizations outside ESA,we chose to focus our action plan on three areas:building an informed public; advancinginnovative, anticipatory research; andstimulating cultural changes that foster aforward-looking and international ecology. Theactions we recommend will require commitmentand hard work, including collaboration and newpartnerships among the ESA and other societies,

ESA created the Sustainable Biosphere Initiative (SBI) as a call to arms for all ecologists, andalso to serve as a means to communicate with individuals in other disciplines with whom ecologistsmust join forces to address our common predicament. It called for acquiring ecological knowledge,communicating that knowledge to citizens, and incorporating that knowledge into policy andmanagement decisions. (Lubchenco et al. 1991). The Initiative has influenced and informed muchof ESAs efforts since 1991.

Box 1The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative

The desire to develop a sustainable future and thescience to accomplish this is widespread, and hasbeen an explicit goal of the Ecological Society ofAmerica (ESA) for over a decade. The SustainableBiosphere Initiative (Box 1) was produced by theESA in an effort to highlight the key role of basicecological research and articulate ecologicalresearch priorities related to global change,biological diversity, and strategies for sustainableecological systems. Considerable effort has beenand continues to be devoted to the first twopriorities, yet we still have only a rudimentaryunderstanding of what is needed for sustainableecological systems, even though such systems arerequired for a vast array of vital ecosystem services(Kates et al. 2001, Cash et al. 2003). We findourselves in the earliest stages of understandingsustainability.

In 2002, the Governing Board of the ESAcharged a commitee with preparing an action planthat would accelerate our progress in addressingthe major environmental challenges of our timeand increase the contribution of ecologicalscience in the coming decades. The SBImotivated the committees work, but our chargewas to develop an action plan for the Societyand for the future of ecological science in general.We were not asked to identify the most critical

research questions nor to prioritize a list ofresearch topics. This has already been veryeffectively accomplished by many highlyesteemed groups and our committee agrees withtheir general assessment (Box 2). In initiating ourwork as a committee, we fully embraced theviews expressed by the ESA Governing Boardin 2003 under the leadership of President PamelaMatson:

...to make progress insolving the majorenvironmental challengesand ensure that ecologicalscience contributes to amore sustainable world, abold and specific actionplan is needed.

5

organizations, agencies, and the business sector.Furthermore, these partnerships should beinternational in scope and in focus.

Our recommended actions cover a largerange: from big-scale, long-term, high-budgetprojects to smaller tasks that could beundertaken immediately with few additionalresources. We did not shy away from thelarger, more ambitious activities; we believethey represent the scale at which we as acommunity must think and act in order toachieve sustainability science. We envisionthe ESA playing a significant role in all of theactions we propose. That role may range fromfacilitator or champion of activities thatrequire multiple partners and significantresources to sole implementer of actions that

can be accomplished within existing ESAstructures.

The recommended actions represent theconclusions we reached after many hours ofwork as a committee. We received extensiveinput from numerous groups (government,non-governmental organizations [NGOs], thebusiness sector), individuals, and manymembers of our Society, including theGoverning Board itself. The input varied fromone-on-one discussions to group meetingsamong the committee members (Appendix 2),breakfast briefings in Washington, DC withagency, NGO, and industry representatives(Appendix 3), presentations from federalagency and NGO representatives (Appendix2), as well as email correspondence and inputfrom a web survey of the ESA membership(Appendix 4).

Box 2Critical Environmental Issues for Prioritizing Ecological Research*

The science of ecosystem servicesBiodiversity, species composition, and ecosystem functioningEcological aspects of biogeochemical cyclesEcological implications of climate changeEcology and evolution of infectious diseasesInvasive speciesLand use and habitat alterationFreshwater resources and coastal environments

6

* This list was compiled by the ESA Ecological Visions committee after reviewing numerous reports (seehttp://www.esa.org/ecovisions/ev_projects/ref_documents.php). Issues are not listed in order of priorityand reflect committee views and particularly input from two reports: NRC (2003), NSF-ERE (2003).

As we enter the 21st Century, wide recognitionexists that humans have altered virtually all of Earthsecological systems. Few places remain that rightlycould be called pristine. People and their institutionsneed wood, so even the most remote rain forestshave been logged to the point of exhaustion(Kremen et al. 2000). The need for energy andtransportation has led to increases in atmosphericcarbon dioxide,methane, and nitrous oxides (NRC2000, IPCC 2001). Earths supply of water hasremained finite, but the usable amount has declined;almost all freshwater bodies are degraded or wateris being siphoned off at rates that are leading tototal depletion in some regions (Gleick 2003),threatening fierce cross-border disputes. We areprofoundly degrading the health of Earthsecosystems.

The impacts that humans make on the environmentare clearly at odds with the fact that humans dependon a diverse array of natural services that can beprovided only by healthy ecosystems (Daily 1997).The challenge is to preserve these vital services asthe worlds human population soars and as nationsand their inhabitants quite naturally seek to improve

The Need for an Action Plan

their standard of living. The issues are not justoverpopulation but over-exploitation of naturalresources, particularly by peoples of the developedworld such as the United States.

Human population size reached 6 billion in thespring of 2004, according to the United Nations.growth projections suggest that even if the growthrate does taper off , as expected , the momentumof previous population growth means that by theend of the century, the worlds ecosystems will haveto support 811 billion people (Lutz et al. 2001).However, from the perspective of ecologicalsustainability, it is difficult to see any future scenariothat would support this many people at todays ratesof resource consumption (Dobkowski andWallimann 2002). Even given the currentpopulation level, the ability of global ecosystemsto sustain humans is quickly being eroded andexceeded in many places. Meanwhile, Earths abilityto produce goods and services is being degradedfurther. Thus, regardless of the ultimate humanpopulation size, new thinking and new solutions areneeded now to ensure a planet that can sustain aburgeoning human population.

7

Box 3Sustainability

Sustainable, from the Latin sustinere, means to keep in existence. The term sustainabledevelopment came into general use with the 1980 publication of the World Conservation Strategyby the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The term gained wide currency eightyears later with the release of Our Common Future by the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment, better known as the Bruntland Commission. There have been many variations on thedefinition of the word.

This report adopts the definition used by the National Research Council: meeting human needswhile conserving the Earths life support systems and reducing hunger and poverty (NRC 1999).

Ecologists traditionally have paid greatattention to Earths least disturbed areasthe rain forests, islands, wildernesses. Theirresearch has produced immensely significantinsights into complex ecological interactions.This valuable work has uniquely positionedresearchers to create an ecology of the future:a science that reshapes the view of keyecological questions and a science thatexplicitly recognizes and incorporates thedominant influence of humans. It is time forecology and ecologists to enter a new andcritically important phase, one that requirescrucial changes in thoughts and actions.

We believe that ecologists (and environmentalscientists generally, as well as decision makers)must accept the inevitability of a planet with a vastlyincreased population and over-exploited resources.All must incorporate into their thinking, planningand research the irrepressible tendency of humansto modify their world. That tendency may declineas Earths precarious position becomes betterunderstood by its inhabitants. But until that happens,our thinking must reflect todays reality.

The ecology of the future must become moreresponsive to, and respectful of, the huge humanfootprint. Ecological knowledge can and must playa central role in helping achieve a world in whichhuman populations exist within sustainableecological systems. This is not a utopian view, buta realistic one. It need not invite despair. It doesrequire that sound, problem-driven environmentalscience and forecasting become criticalcomponents of decision making. And it requiresan acknowledgement that a more sustainable futurewill involve some combination of conserved,restored, and invented ecological solutions.

Thus, we argue for a more forward-looking andinternational ecological science focused onhow natural systems and the large humanpopulations they support can coexist on amore sustainable planet. We call this

Ecological Science and Sustainability for aCrowded Planet. It is based on the views that:1) the rich history of basic ecological researchprovides us with a strong foundation formoving forward in sustainability science; and2) the central role that ecological science mustplay in the future of our planet places a uniqueresponsibility on ecologists to develop andimplement plans of action. The central goalmust be to chart an understanding of howecosystems help sustain humans and theecological services they value and how we canbalance conservation, restoration, anddesigned solutions to ensure that naturesservices continue into the future.

The need for an action plan stems in part from thefact that thus far ecological science has not beencharacterized by regional and global partnershipsfor advancing research that can influence issues ofsustainability. Nor has it been particularly effectivein informing decisions that affect our environment.We need to bolster research, but perhaps moreimportantly, we need to communicate our sciencemuch more effectively than we have in the past.Major changes in ecological science have alreadylaid the foundation for these changes, since manyecologists who once concentrated their researchon systems with minimal human influence are nowfocusing on how humans interface with nature(Povilitis 2001, Turner et al. 2003) and are nowconsidering the relevance of their work for policy.The community must, however, go one step further.

Unparalleled interactions with physical andsocial scientists, as well as the public, policy,and corporate sectors, are required, as aremajor new initiatives across the three frontier actionareas that are described below. Indeed, regionaland global partnerships will be required to implementmany of the actions that we recommend. The ESAcannot and should not attempt by itself toimplement those actions that need input,perspectives, and resources from diverse groupsaround the world. However, because of its

8

9

international political influence and itsdisproportionate consumption of non-renewablenatural resources and disproportionate release ofglobally-transmitted pollutants (UNEP 1999), theUS and its ecologists have a particular responsibilityto initiate such partnerships.

Many current efforts at the international level arealready ongoing but they should be enhanced andshould play a significant role in these partnerships.For example, the Millennium EcosystemAssessment (MA) is an international work programlaunched by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan inJune 2001. Its goal is to provide scientificinformation on the consequences of ecosystemchange to decision makers and the public (MA2003). Similarly, the Resilience Alliance (2004) hasan international program to assist in thedevelopment of theory and solutions for managingsocial-ecological systems.

Partnerships between researchers and governmentagencies are also important, as agencies have theresources to help implement new research

programs and to understand from their perspectivethe critical problems that we need to respond to oranticipate. For example, in implementation of theEndangered Species Act, US government agenciesset specific ecological information requirements,and, in the process, very effectively framed gaps incurrent knowledge (Levy 2003). Multinationalinitiatives such as the Pan-European Biological andLandscape Diversity program represent innovativepartnerships between governmental and non-governmental groups that also bridge science,policy, and economics in order to protectbiodiversity. These programs and many others areripe for more science and more participation onthe part of the ecological scientific community.

We now turn to the three visionary themes withassociated actionsinforming decisions withecological knowledge, advancing innovative andanticipatory research, and stimulating culturalchange. Without progress in all three areas, we willnot achieve the goals of bolstering ecological scienceand sustainability for our crowded planet.

Rationale

Ecologists and current ecological knowledgepresently play only marginal roles in many, if notmost, of the daily decisions that affect ecologicalsustainability (NRC 2001, Walters 1998). Suchdecisions include the choices individual citizensmake about how they use resources, from whetheror not to recycle a soda can, to which car topurchase, to how to dispose of manure from theirchicken farms. Those decisions also includepeoples perceptions of the the actions of agenciesentrusted with environmental stewardship.Decisions about land and natural resourcemanagement, ecological restoration, technologydevelopment, and the regulation of environmentalhazards are made by government agenciesoperating at the local, state, provincial, national,and international levels.

The translation of ecological knowledge into a formthat is accurate and serviceable for policy,management, or education purposes is oftendelayed. This lag between advances in ecologicalscience and integration of these advances intodecision making occurs for several reasons(Bradshaw and Borchers 2000). Ecological sciencedoes not always answer the questions that matterto user groups because the research communitydoes not understand such needs or recognize themas priorities. One consequence is that the decision

VISION 1:

INFORM DECISIONS WITH ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE1

Vision Statement: The science of ecology is poised to provide the scientific insights crucial to thesustainable management of our planet and its resources. To meet this challenge, ecological knowledgemust underpin the decisions that affect ecological sustainability and this integration must occur atall levels of society worldwide.

1 As noted by the International Council for Science (ICSU), inform implies three interacting processes: Ecological knowledge helpsto inform decision-making at all levels, decisions are informed by the best ecological knowledge available, and future research can beinformed by needs and concerns of decision makers. (ICSU 2002). Knowledge can be considered information that changes behavioreither by motivating or changing capacity for action (see Allen 1999). Information dissemination may have impact on awareness, butnot necessarily behavior or action (Allen 1999). Therefore, communication, education, and capacity-building are required to effectchange in integration of ecological knowledge into decisionmaking at all levels.

makers may not view ecology as relevant (Cash etal. 2003); therefore, ecologists do not always havea seat at the table in contexts in which they couldmake fundamental contributions. The situation canbe changed, but it will require new ways ofidentifying scientific priorities and new ways ofcommunicating ecological knowledge, both withinour own countries and across international borders.It is no longer enough to just do the science; thenew knowledge must be conveyed in a way thatallows policy makers to translate the science intoactions (Cash et al. 2003), as well as convincesthose policy makers that action is important. Andthe knowledge must be globalized so that accessto worldwide ecological information is easy toobtain.

Relatively few people or institutions routinelytranslate ecological information and concepts intoknowledge that is directly applicable to real-worlddecisionsor, conversely, identify sciencequestions based on user needs. Understanding andappreciation of the significance of these functionsis generally low among the general public anddecision makers (Cash et al. 2003). In the vacuumthat is left, an increasing number of organizations,ranging from environmental nonprofits to industrylobbyists, are aggressively marketing mission-driven messages and information about theenvironment. Many users and members of thepublic now gather information from a variety of

10

Action Areas for Informing Decisions (ID) with Ecological Knowledge

A. Integrate advances in ecological knowledge into policy and management decisions that affect ecological sustainability.

B. Promote a thoughtful public today and educate future generations so that the public can use the best ecological knowledge when making individual choices about sustainability.

sources, ranging from peer-reviewed journalarticles, to materials that present self-servinginterests, to news accounts, to both well-documented and unattributed Web pages. As aresult, decision makers, managers, educators, andthe public may have difficulty discriminating amongthe differing objectives and scientific reliability ofthese sources.

Institutions such as the ESA have a critical role toplay in ensuring that science-based informationabout ecological sustainability is accessible todecision makers at all levels and that this informationis framed globally. Environmental policies set bythe US that do not consider environmental impactsacross international borders are not adequate. Werecommend a two-part strategy, which wedescribe as action areas, to greatly acceleratethe integration of ecological knowledge andecologists into decision making, management,and educational processes that affectecological sustainability. Each action areatargets a different, but equally important, part ofthe problem.

Area A: Integrate advances in ecologicalknowledge into policy and managementdecisions that affect ecological sustainability.

A growing consensus has emerged worldwide that,as might be expected, better environmentaldecisions occur when choices are informed bydialogue among scientists, policy makers, and thepublic (OST and Wellcome Trust 2001, Parsons2001, Worcester 2002, 2000). Nevertheless,

existing processes affecting ecological sustainabilityhave yielded mixed success in integrating currentecological science. For example, these processesdo not always pull in the appropriate experts: forvarious reasons, ecologists do not participate inmany sustainability issues that have significantecological components. Moreover, those scientistswho are involved may have limited opportunity tooffer their ideas or may not understand the policyor management context fully enough to provideuseful advice.

The problem does not lie solely with the scientists.The users of ecological knowledge often do notunderstand the full range of information orconceptual insights that ecologists might provide(Alpert and Keller et al. 2003). There are severalpossible reasons for ecologys lack of a seat atthe decision-making table; other scientific fields mayhave co-opted ecologys role. Ecology is arelatively new discipline, and it still suffers in somecircles from not being recognized as a realscience. By definition, ecology is (or should be) amultidisciplinary undertaking, and this may frustrate

11

decision makers who seek simple, magic bulletanswers. And sometimes ecologists fail to assertthemselves in policy matters.

Over the years, ecologists have created a hugeknowledge base, but they do not always advertiseits availability or know how to present it tononscientists in comprehendible form. If ecologicalknowledge is to be better integrated into publicpolicy and management choices, there must be

better communication and collaboration betweenecologists and the people who develop the policiesand manage the resources.

Recommended Actions:

ID Action 1. Establish an internationalnetwork of Centers for the EcologicalImplementation of Solutions (CEIS). (also seeAR Action 1 below and Box 5). Building on existingexpertise and infrastructure within the ESA andother professional societies, government, andprivate institutions and programs, CEIS wouldfoster partnerships among researchers, managers,and decision makers to actively develop anddisseminate relevant new information to theappropriate audiences. Various developmentalmethods (e.g., workshops, working groups) andoutreach methods (e.g., Web-based materials,white papers) would be used to build support forthe centers.

The media should not be overlooked. Not all of itsmembers are responsible or have the time orinclination to determine the relevance of complexecological information. But some are, and theycomplain that their editors lack interest in storiesthat do not promise miracle breakthroughs or cannot be told in a few words. Ecologists shouldcultivate relationships with the more thoughtfulreporters and editors.

The centers would play a pivotal role in linkingresearch scientists with managers to ensure a broadunderstanding of the science that is needed to takeus toward a more sustainable future. The centerswould address policy and management issues atlocal to international scales by involvinginterdisciplinary groups of scientists and managersin solving shared problems.

Such an approach would provide valuable forumsfor connecting ecological science to its applicationsin policy and management issues that affect

sustainability. Projects hosted by the centers wouldaddress issues that range from local to internationaldecision making. Scientists, policy makers, naturalresource managers, or corporations could feel freeto propose projects. The projects would share oneprovision: each must involve true collaboration andbalanced representation among the users andproducers of ecological knowledge.

The centers would provide a level playing fieldthat encourages high-quality, two-way exchangeof information between decision makers andscientists. Two-way exchange is critical, becausethe goal is to improve integration of the very bestecological knowledge into policy and managementand to inform the direction of ecological researchto address societal needs. In addition, because somany issues of ecological sustainability areinherently interdisciplinary, the centers also wouldprovide a venue in which ecologists couldcollaborate with economists, engineers,hydrologists, and scientists from many otherdisciplines in solving shared problems.

The projects hosted by the centers would producea rich set of experiments in linking ecologicalscience to sustainability policy and practice. Thispresents an enormous opportunity to learn the bestway to create such linkages. An assessment activitywould be part of all projects hosted by a center. Itwould analyze methods for encouraging groupinteractions and communication and would evaluatethe projects impacts on ecological sustainability.What researchers learn from these assessmentswould be documented in a body of scholarlyliterature on the institutional arrangements andprocesses that work best in joining ecologicalscience to its applications (e.g., Bennett et al. 2003,Cash et al. 2003, Castillo 2000).

The centers would function with a small permanentstaff and facility to support projects, to conductproject assessment activities, and to ensurecontinuity across projects in selected areas ofspecial interest. For example, over a given

12

period of time, a center might host a set ofprojects on specific issues such as forestmanagement, sustainable agriculture, or wetlandsrestoration. Ongoing participation by adedicated staff member at a center would ensurethat insights could be gleaned from comparisonsacross projects.

Functions anticipated for the centers include: Convening working groups, symposia, and

analytical projects that will improve theintegration of ecological knowledge into real-world policy or management issues atinternational, national, regional, or localscales.

Convening projects specifically to evaluatethe implications of new discoveries orconceptual advances in the ecologicalsciences for policy or management issues.These projects would communicate resultsmore broadly across potential usercommunities, and thus reach a wideraudience.

Developing a special focus on effectivelyintegrating ecological knowledge into land-use planning decisions made at the countylevel. Those decisions have profound effectson the environment and its sustainability, butthis important area is particularly poorlyaddressed at present.

ID Action 2. Build on programs that serveas honest brokers of information and userapid response teams to assist decisionmakers. The ESA could initiate partnerships todevelop a program, based in Washington, DC,that would draw on expertise from the field ofecology to score legislative and executive branchproposals for their impact on ecologicalsustainability, and to identify experts who wouldexpeditiously provide input and testimony onpending legislation or regulations. If successful,this venture would result, over time, in legislativeand policy proposals that are better informedby ecological knowledge and an increased

involvement by ecological scientists in legislativeand policy processes.

The work will require a skilled and scientificallyliterate staff of science policy analysts who havepermanent networking relationships with decisionmakers in Washington. These analysts alsowould be well-connected to the membership ofthe ESA and other societies in order to identifyappropriate experts as needs arise. The staffwould also work with experts to ensure they areeffective in communicating their scientificknowledge through testimony, in writing, andother public participation opportunities. Theirwork would include:

Developing and implementing anInformed by Ecological Knowledge(IEK) scoring system. The results wouldfunction as independent and objectivereport cards for pending legislation. Theintent would be to assess and emphasizethe quality of ecological scienceunderpinning the legislation. Theyexplicitly would not take advocacypositions.

Serving as the contact point and sourcefor scientifically credible and trustedadvisors drawn from the membership ofthe ESA and other professional societies.Decision makers in Washington wouldknow they could call on the team torapidly provide high-quality,independent, andabove allobjective ecological input and testimonyfor emerging legislative, policy, andmanagement issues. (In this sense, theteam would function similarly to the USCongressional Research Service or thenow-closed Office of TechnologyAssessment, and would act as a rapidresponse team that provides input ontime-sensitive issues).

This program could serve as model for similarprograms in major cities worldwide.

13

ID Action 3. Increase the number ofecologists within government agencies whomake decisions or influence the decisionsof others related to ecologicalsustainabi l i ty. Individuals with strongbackgrounds in ecological science will ensure thatpolicy and management decisions are informedby the best available ecological knowledge; or,when the best available ecological knowledge isnot sufficient, these individuals will be positionedto push to obtain itto argue for targetedresearch or adaptive management approachesor both. Ecologists employed in positions thatrequire frequent interaction with the public willhave opportunities to educate the public on issuesof ecological sustainability. Ultimately this shouldoccur on a worldwide basis. To begin to increasethe employment rate of ecologists in agenciesand the legislative branch in the US, the ESAcould undertake the following:

Develop a postdoctoral program, suchas the AAAS Science, Technology andPolicy Fellows, and the National SeaGrant or John A. Knauss Marine PolicyFellowships, designed specifically toplace promising early-career ecologistson Congressional staffs and in federalagencies.

Collaborate with workforce planners infederal and state agencies in buildingecological capacity and knowledge.Particularly important places for capacitybuilding include agency functions thatinteract with the public (e.g., NRCs fieldservice representatives, Bureau of LandManagement agents, county agriculturalextension agents) and that conductresearch that should, but presently doesnot, often have an ecological component.Possible approaches include persuadingmanagers of the importance of ecologicalknowledge within agency missionstatements and helping agencies developpostion descriptions and advertiseopenings across the ESA membership.

14

Area B: Foster a thoughtful public today andeducate generations of tomorrow so that thebest ecological knowledge informs individualchoices about sustainability.

In the near term, accomplishing this goal will requirea full-scale public information effort. The campaignwould seek to increase awareness about ecologicalsustainability and explain the sustainability issuesaffecting the quality of peoples lives and those offuture generations. There is no question that thepublic is aware of threats to sustainability, especiallywhen sustainability is related to the well-being ofthe publics children and grandchildren. But thereis ample evidence of public uncertaintyperhapsfuelled by the environmentalists versus developerstone of much of the discussionover howsustainability might best be achieved. Through thisinformation campaign, members of the public willbecome more aware of ways in which theirdecisions and actions make a difference, and theywill better understand the science that should informtheir choices. They also will learn that concernsabout sustainability include much more than thecharismatic mega-issues such as climate changeand species extinction.

Over the longer term, a full-scale public educationprogram will be essential to ensure lasting changesin the publics understanding of the link betweenecology and sustainability. The next fifty years willbe a period of great change in ecosystemsworldwide, and future generations must beprepared to make sound and scientifically informedchoices that influence the environment at all levelslocal, landscape, regional, and global. Educationwill be critical if future generations are to have thenecessary knowledge, attitudes, and skills to doso (Castillo et al. 2002, Jenkins 2003). There isconsiderable evidence that the public, especiallyyounger persons, will welcome such education.

Ensuring that ecology education provides afoundation for informed decision making will requireimproved literacy about ecological sustainability

among teachers and integration of ecologicalsustainability into the standards and curriculamandated by countries, states, and provinces(Berkowitz 1997, NCSE 2003, Slingsby andBarker 1998). Busy educators at all levelsalso need increased access to ecologicalknowledge in useful formats, as well as to thelatest advances in ecology education theoryand practice.

Recommended actions:

ID Action 4. Develop a major publicinformation campaign to bring issues ofecological sus ta inabi l i ty before thegeneral public. The campaign will be ofsufficient scope and breadth that it willsignificantly raise awareness about ecologicalsustainability among most segments of society.Additional targeted campaigns will seek toincrease understanding among attentive andinfluential segments of society.

The ESA, in collaboration with funding andother partners, can help create a campaignthat delivers a science-based perspective onecological sustainability and that avoidsadvocacy of specific policy positions. Partsof the campaign could be structured arounda set of high profile issues of broad publicconcern and help audiences understand thescientific basis for solving problems ofecological sustainability. Other groups havealready begun education campaigns, and ESAshould not reinvent the wheelESA shouldpartner with such groups, help leverageresources, and bring the membership of thesegroups into the process.

Broad-scale dissemination of information tothe public demands a quantum leap pastconventional print, broadcast, and Web-based media. National awareness of whatecological sustainability is and how eachcitizen is connected to his or her ecosystem

will require a coordinated and prolongedcampaign of Internet, television, radio, andprint mediaone on the scale of the USantismoking campaign.

For example, the ESA, working with otherpartners, could hire professionals in massmedia communications to design andimplement the campaign. Strategies couldinclude public service announcements inradio, network TV ads, and posters onbillboards and in public transport systems(This is an ecosystem [a series of postersdepicting a variety of systems, from drops ofrainwater to satellite images of the Amazonbasin]; Have you seen your ecosystemlately?), and more comprehensive materialsfor those who would like to learn more.Specialized campaigns should also targetgroups that have the ability to effect significantchanges in public policy or industryforexample, members of Congress, nationalindustry associations, and environmentallobbyists and similar audiences in statecapitals.

ID Action 5. Work with diverse public,nonprofit, and religious organizations tobetter integrate ecological knowledgeinto their relevant outreach and publiceducation campaigns. Many religiousgroups have responded to emergingenvironmental concerns by linking values toan ethos of environmental stewardship. TheESA can encourage the integration ofcontemporary and rigorous ecologicalknowledge into this movement by providingspeakers on ecological issues of local andnational significance and developingappropriate information products. Forexample, the ESA could prepare targetedinformation packages by working with multi-faith organizations and scholars that areaddressing the link between ecologicalsustainability and religion, such as the National

15

ID Action 6. Establish internationally-coordinated ecology education programs. Thegoal of these programs is to ensure that systemicchanges occur in ecology education to makebetter and more effective use of concepts anddiscoveries in sustainability science. Theprograms could be modeled after the NationalAcademy of Engineerings Center for theAdvancement of Scholarship on EngineeringEducation (CASEE) (NAE 2002). The ESAwould need to work with other ecology andeducation professional societies, educationresearch institutions, and funding partners toestablish local, national, and internationalprograms.

16

Advances in ecology education research will alsobe essential to enable this systemic change.There must be better connections betweenecologists and educators through educationresearch, teacher education, science educationpolicy development, and professionaldevelopment. Relatively little support exists forany of these activities today, specifically forecology education. Innovative programs couldremedy this gap by connecting ecologicalknowledge with the best information from educationresearch to advance K-12, undergraduate, andnon-formal education (DAvanzo 2003, Keys andBryan 2001, Walczyk and Ramsey 2003).Programs must provide ecologists with access tobest practices in teaching and learning, advancesin educational research, and expertise from theeducation sector to help develop curriculum-basedand developmentally-appropriate education oroutreach programs (e.g., McKeown 2003).

ESA-related actions anticipated for educationprograms include the following:

ID 6a. Develop and deliver professionaldevelopment programs for K-12 educatorsrelated to ecological sustainability. This mightinclude an annual international EcologyEducation meeting1, bringing together ahundred leading science education specialistsand ecologists. Each meeting could focus ondeveloping ecological sustainability educationprograms and curricula of state, provincial, ornational significance. The meetings also mightpromote ecologist-educator partnershipprograms such as SYEFEST (SchoolyardEcology for Elementary School Teachers) atall levels of K-12 education.

ID 6b. Expand the TIEE (Teaching Issues andExperiments in Ecology 2004) FIRST (FacultyInstitutes Reforming Science Teaching 2004),or similar undergraduate faculty support andenhancement programs for ecologyeducationwith a special focus on ecologicalsustainability. Appropriate education research

Religious Partnership for the Environment(http://www.nrpe.org/mission.html), and theHarvard University Center for the Study ofWorld Religions (http://www.hds.harvard.edu/cswr).

Numerous other government and privateorganizations are delivering messages to thepublic that directly or indirectly addressecological sustainability. Some alreadysupport the dissemination of peer-reviewedscience (e.g., US federal and state agencies).These and many other organizations, includingenvironmental and sustainability NGOs, wouldbenefit from broader involvement of ecologistsin helping to build scientifically accuratemessages; however, they may not be aware ofthe enormous resources the 8,000 members ofthe ESA represent. The ESA could facilitate theinvolvement of ecologists by building workingrelationships between the ESA Governing Boardand such organizations (through memoranda ofunderstanding, for example) and thenmatchmaking between each organizationsneeds and expertise from across the ESA. Thematchmaking could take place either actively ona case-by-case basis or by creating a Web-based resource built upon the existing EcologicalInformation Network (EIN 2004).

1 The meetings could be modeled after the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Leadership Program for Teachers.

I

17

could be assisted by partnerships between theESA and major education professional societiesor education research centers to assess anddisseminate information about such capacitybuilding programs.

ID 6c. Analyze and participate in curriculumstandards and textbook development for ecologyin K-12 and undergraduate education.Government mandated national, state, andprovincial standards, or programs of study,undergo review every five to ten years, and thereviews frequently attract partisans of variouscauses (the evolution-creationism debate is aprominent example). These reviews provideopportunities for scientists to make the case for,and explain the facts of, ecological sustainability(Blank and Brewer 2003). The ESA EducationOffice staff could track changes and opportunitiesfor ecologists to participate in education policyreform.

ID 6d. Increase diversity among ecologyeducators nationally and internationally. Educatorsare usually the closest that most K-12 studentscome to working with anyone having scientificknowledge (Slingsby 2001). We need accessiblerole models to meet the needs of diverse studentpopulations at the primary, secondary, andundergraduate education levels. The ESA couldexpand and apply the highly successful SEEDSprogram to recruit minority ecologyundergraduate and graduate students to pursuecareers in K-12 educationparticularly in thearea of ecological sustainability.

ID 6e. Establish a Web-based e-library thatprovides up-to-date access to advances inresearch and education on ecologicalsustainability. The library would be available toeducators, curriculum developers, and the public,both within the US and internationally. The ERICDigests provides a potential model for presenting

best-practices and education research summariesfor use by educators at all levels.

ID Action 7. Work with the United Nations todeclare an International Decade of EcologyEducation as part of the Decade of Educationfor Sustainable Development (2005-2015).International ecology education reform will requireinternational actions. Such a declaration will raiseawareness in the US and beyond about the significanceof ecological knowledge in enabling sustainableecosystems. It also is likely to result in policyoutcomes, such as declarations that addressgovernment incorporation of ecological knowledgeinto decision making, education, and literacy. Actionsto accompany this declaration could include thefollowing:

ID 7a. Organize and implement a series ofEcology Education Conferences, bringingtogether professional science and educationsocieties to identify advances, gaps, and frontiersin education related to ecological sustainability.The scope and sequence for the series couldinclude: an all-society Ecology Educationsymposium at the 2005 ESA/InternationalAssociation for Ecology (INTECOL) meeting,a 2010 National Ecology Education Conferencefor science and education professional societies,and a 2015 International Ecology EducationConference.

ID 7b. Publish and widely disseminateproceedings from the education conferences. Onlyfour major books have been published byprofessional ecological societies, institutes, orecologists since 1966 that directly address thestatus of ecology education in undergraduateeducation (Lambert 1966), environmentaleducation (Bakshi and Naveh 1980, Hale 1993),and urban ecosystems (Berkowitz et al. 2003).The proceedings would promote scholarship inecology education and provide educators at alllevels with periodic syntheses of advances ineducation practice.

18

Summary - Informing Decisions

The most important thing we can do to moveecology toward assuming the critical role it mustplay in addressing our current and futureenvironmental challenges is to get the rightinformation into the right hands at the right timeand in the right form. It is also one of our mostdifficult tasks. But it needs to be done ifecological science is to make its badly-neededcontribution to sustainability. For this to happen,we must take the responsibility to ensure thatour science is relevant and that it is used in alllevels of decision making. The strategy wepropose will promote a foundation for progressthat will move ecology beyond the marginal roleit currently plays to full partnership in decisionsregarding ecological sustainability.

In our vision of the future, ecological knowledgeis a standard and necessary factor in decisionmaking in all aspects of society. If we are

successful, ecological scientists will be calledupon to assist in policy decisions at the local,national and global levels. Industry will seeecological science as a friend, rather thanopponentand as a key ingredient in makingeconomically and socially good businessdecisions. Natural resource managers andresearch scientists will work together to developmore informative and useful research programs.We will see the fruits of ecological education ina global human population that betterunderstands our dependence on ecologicalservices and that respects and appreciatesbiological diversity. We believe this vision isobtainable, but this future depends on the actionswe take now. The vast array of existinginformation, important advances in research,technological innovations, and exciting newcollaborations that are called for in other parts ofthis report will provide ammunition but will not moveus forward unless we have the structure in place totake us from data, to outreach, to application.

VISION 2:

ADVANCE INNOVATIVE AND ANTICIPATORY RESEARCH

Vision Statement: Broadly innovative and effective ecological research in the 21st Century willrequire proactive research in which ecologists anticipate problems and needs, develop creative andsometimes high-risk ideas, employ novel methods, and are willing to work at unprecedented scalesand levels of coordination. Within this decade, steps must be taken to develop, implement, synthesize,and apply new conceptual approaches, analytical methods, and technological tools. The aim here isto quantify, explain, and predict ecological phenomena critical to the sustainability of the biosphere.

Rationale

Ecological research questions extend across aspectrum that ranges from increasingly rich andsophisticated molecular-level analyses of both livingand nonliving components of the worldsecosystems to integrated views of the entire globe(e.g., Thompson et al. 2001). The enterprise ofecological research already spans Earth and isreaching into our solar system. It ranges from remoteoutposts on land and sea, to the familiar patchworklandscape of more developed areas, to the heartof our most populated cities. Despite this,ecological understanding still often lags behind thescale and rapid pace of changes that occur on theplanet (Vitousek 1994, Lubchenco 1998, NRC2001). The extent of human-induced environmentalchange is making the science of ecology increasinglycritical to the future of life on Earth (Lubchenco1998, NRC 1999, 2001, NEON 2000, NSF2000, NSF-ERE 2003). We must anticipate thescientific needs, not simply react to and report onthem.

For ecology to meet the challenges of the future,we must develop anticipatory and novelconceptual, analytical, and interdisciplinaryframeworks. Progress in understanding

ecosystemshow they function, how they relateto one another, and how they can be restored orcreated to provide essential servicesrequires thedevelopment of new, imaginative tools andimproved accessibility and ease of use oftechnologies. Comprehensive ecologicalunderstanding demands integration and synthesisof multiple sources of information. Widelyaccessible, integrated devices to captureinformation in ecology and allied disciplines areneeded, even those whose links to ecologicalsustainability are not immediately apparent. Theinterdisciplinary nature of the research we needmeans that new models of collaboration must bebuilt both at the national and international levels.

The research we undertake must be ultimatelymotivated by the need to build a betterunderstanding of how ecosystem services areprovided and can be sustained. Basic researchis critical; solution-driven research is itspartner. To accomplish this will require not justhighly innovative thinking that anticipatesfuture needs and problems; it also will requiresignificant changes in the way ecologicalinformation is collected, synthesized, andcommunicated, and it requires new researchtools, approaches and infrastructure .

19

Area A. Build the intellectual and technicalinfrastructure for ecology.

Ecological understanding rests on knowledge thatis gained from multiple avenues, includingexperimentation, theory and modeling, comparativeobservations, long-term study, and synthesis(Carpenter 1998). The environmental researchcommunity has generally responded to problemsthat are here and now (e.g., biodiversity loss, thespread of nonnative species, the initial signs ofglobal climate change). We also need a focus onthe future, even though by definition the future islargely unknown. We need a new body ofknowledge, radically new research agendas, andnew ways of ensuring that ecology is a componentof the important decisions facing society in thefuture. We need additional funding resources tosupport research, but we also must fosterintellectual and interpersonal support within ourdiscipline for experimenting with new conceptualframeworks and for developing new analyticalmethods.

New frameworks mean envisioning the knowledgeand research that we need to realize a future worldin which socio-ecological systems are sustainable.Forward-looking, anticipatory research goesbeyond what we know is technically feasible nowto what could be feasible if we only knew or hadsome piece of information, a new tool, or someanalytical solution (Box 4). The intellectual

Action Areas for Advancing Innovative and Anticipatory Research (AR)

A. Enhance the intellectual and technical infrastructure for ecology.

B. Create new incentives to recognize and encourage anticipatory and innovative research.

C. Promote the standardization of data collection, data documentation, and data sharing.

infrastructure we need to accomplish anticipatoryresearch is not just idea-driven but also includes asuite of widely available tools for the seamlessintegration of data, theory, concepts, and models.In some cases, this framework (e.g., software,algorithms) is reasonably welldeveloped, yetprogress in collecting and evaluating new data islimited by technical or financial barriers. Forexample, the quantitative approaches to design andinterpretation of results from studies of variance inboth space and time simply do not exist, yet suchvariance can be a major factor in determining keyecological responses (Rusack et al. 2002, Burrowset al. 2002, Fraterrigo et al. in review).

Experimental tests of new ideas will in many casesrequire replicating large-scale manipulativeexperiments. Efficient computational algorithms willbe needed to store, analyze, and view the volumesof data that may be generated. Interdisciplinaryframeworks that incorporate such complicatedinteractions as multivariate causality, nonlinearfeedback, and individual-based decision makingare sure to be at the leading edge of future researchthat explicitly incorporates humans in the system.Thus, we will need the infrastructure (e.g., NEON,LTER, ocean observatories) to conduct large-scaleexperiments, but we also will need significantincreases in training, collaborations, andinfrastructure to assist in the rapid and thoroughdevelopment of a theoretical and analyticalframeworkone that can optimize subsequent

20

Advancements in research technology, notably thedevelopment of automated sensor systems for insitu and remote measurement of ecologicalphenomena, should become fundamental to futureecological science. In some areas, such as remotesensing, scientists are making good use now oftechnologies that address the complex scales ofmodern ecology, and ecologists have also helpeddrive the research and development of new tools.After the first satellites were launched for weatherprediction in 1960 (Hastings and Emery 1992),scientists, including ecologists, eagerly began usingthem to gather ecologically relevant informationabout the surface of the Earth, from landscapestructure to fluxes of key elements (e.g., Botkin etal. 1984, NRC 1986, NASA-EOS 2003). Almostmagically, we were able to view and assess ourplanet from a totally new perspectiveand,furthermore, to measure its change over time.

Nonetheless, we still do not see Earth with theclarity and resolution we need. Similarly, ourresolution of the ecosystems below land and watersurfaces, and our ability to collect species andgenetic data at the necessary spatial and temporalscales, still fall well short of the detail we need toanswer many key ecological questions (e.g., Souland Orians 2001). Furthermore, we have yet torealize the full potential for applications of newmolecular techniques to ecological research. As thenew techniques have become available, ourappetite has grown for even more sophisticatedtools.

New technologies, such as satellite platforms,increased computing power, and robust GPS-based tracking devices, to name just a few, canhelp overcome barriers to progress. Astronomerscould not unravel mysteries of our solar systemwithout high-powered telescopes; physicists couldnot see the structure of an atom without massive

accelerators. Ecology needs similar technologiesto allow it to face similar grand challenges (NRC2001), but ones that do not resolve so easily intosingle flagship instruments. Instead, understandingthe extraordinary complexity of life on Earthrequires a diverse portfolio of tools and approaches.Designing and implementing such a portfolio willbe essential to the success of ecology in helpingthe human enterprise arrive at a more sustainablefuture.

Recommended Actions:

AR Action 1. Fully scope and then promotethe four-pronged Ecological Research forSustainability Initiative. The initiativerequires close coordination among two novelprograms, an existing center (The NationalCenter for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis[NCEAS]) and a new center. The goal of theinitiative is to facilitate: i) research projectdevelopment, ii) large-scale experiments anddata collection, iii) synthesis, and iv) thelinkage of science to solutions. To successfullymanage, restore, and create sustainableecosystems, we need new ways of thinking, alongwith the ability to generate and test bold ideaswithout being hampered by institutionalarrangements that limit access to information andpeople. Ecology is vastly complex; no individualor single group of ecologists can acquire optimalexpertise in the wide range of disciplines that areencompassed by an ecological science for acrowded planet. Researchers must be able to easilyobtain the intellectual and technological tools theyneed to answer a question without becomingexperts in multiple fields. Funds must be availablefor individuals and groups during the maturationphase of their research idea. There are a fewfederally supported grant programs for ideadevelopment (e.g., NSF incubation grants). Manymore are needed.

Thus, we recommend establishment of newprograms and one new center that build from and

21

efforts in data collection and synthesis (Clark et al.2001, Hastings and Palmer 2003, Palmer et al.2003).

Box 4Anticipatory Research

Until now, much of ecological science has been based on reaction. We want to know why climateis changing; why species are going extinct; what happens when exotic species invade an ecosystem.To keep pace with todays explosion in environmental discoveries and threats, we also need toengage in anticipatory researchto use novel ideas, powerful data acquisition and managementtools, and new technology that is developed to prepare for, and perhaps build defenses, againstwhat is coming next.

Case study: Understanding exchanges between large rivers and their floodplainsRiver-floodplain ecosystems are among the most dynamic, spatially complex, and biologically richhabitats on Earth and a main intersection between environment and society. Their high diversity andproductivity result from their position at the terrestrial-aquatic interface and from interactions betweenphysical and biotic processes. Terrestrial and aquatic areas are alternately connected and disconnectedas waters inundate and recede from the floodplain, producing a shifting river- and -landscape ofhabitats that change dramatically in size, duration and arrangement 1. This variable mosaic of land-and water-based components is a unique property of river-floodplain systems that profoundly affectsboth the direction and magnitude of critical biotic fluxes, such as organic matter transport anddeposition2. This movement of organic matter is extremely important to the provision of ecosystemservices such as clean water and riparian vegetation suitable for wildlife and recreation. However,little is known about how organic matter is actually exchanged between a river and its floodplainbecause the interaction between flow and complex features of the habitat make it difficult to measurethis exchange.

To ensure adequate water for human consumption and to support natural systems, we need to be ableto answer questions such as: Under what conditions and at what scales is the floodplain a source oforganic matter to the river, and under what conditions and scales does the floodplain store suchmatter? Are there thresholds in physical processes, habitat connectivity, or biotic community compositionthat cause the system to change state, such that the floodplain releases rather than stores carbon?Answering these questions is critical to our abilities to preserve and restore ecosystem services alongrivers.

Recently, water researchers have called for new integrative conceptual frameworks and criticalempirical data3. To develop these frameworks and gather the necessary data will require: a distributedarray of in situ sensors that can record key functional variables (e.g., rates of denitrification) remotelyand at appropriate spatial and temporal scales, perhaps in multiple rivers; event-based remote sensingof the extent and depth of flooding and recession; spatially explicit models that link surface andground water flows in a landscape that is complex in topography and vegetative communities; analyticalmethods that incorporate nonlinear dynamics and complex feedbacks; and experimental floods ofvarying magnitude.

1 Ward et al. 1999; Malard et al. 1999; Tockner et al. 2000

2 Bayley 1989, Junk et al. 1989, Bayley 1995

3 Gurnell et al. 2000, Wiens 2002, Ward et al. 2002, Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc. (CUAHSI) 2004

22

infrastructure (Box 5). Individually, the initiativescomponents would greatly enhance researchcapability by providing both virtual and place-basedresources and facilities. With tightly-linkedcomponents, the four-part initiative wouldprovide a powerful integrated system tostimulate the sophisticated, collaborative, andinnovative approaches necessary to designand conduct new research, analyzemultifaceted data, and interpret complexecological information to the public. We arenot suggesting that the specific research to be doneshould be dictated by a committee. Rather, theinitiative would provide information, tools, andservices to individuals or user groups that mayenhance design, implementation, and synthesis ofresearch. Furthermore, the resources from theseprograms and centers would be open to all users,regardless of the nature and scope of their projects,

and would be easily available to them, both on-line (virtual) and in their physical settings.

As a whole, the initiative would facilitate: 1) thedevelopment of complex research projects thatdirectly address issues of sustainability or enhancethe basic ecological science that must underliesustainability science; 2) the ability to conduct largescale projects or gather unique data; 3) researchsynthesis; and 4) the implementation of the researchthat leads to policy and/or management solutions.We expect that one of the major benefits of thissuite of programs and centers would come fromchanges in the ways ecologists and professionalsfrom many disciplines interact productively.

This array of intellectual and technical infrastructurewould build upon a successful existing center(NCEAS) and the proposed (NEON) (NRC2003) to create a resource that collectively provides

23

Schematic of the four components of the Ecological Research for Sustainability Initiative. Where appropriate, a research project could benefit from all four components or could enter or leave the sequence at any point, depending on needs. This structure creates a highly flexible set of resources for the full spectrum of ecological and implementation research needs.

PIER

Programs for Integrative Ecological Research advances idea development provides expertise enhances tool development

NCEAS

ERIN

National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis existing center with enhanced international focus

Ecological Research Infrastructure Network existing or already proposed programs for infrastructure support and networked experiments

Center(s) for the Ecological Implementation of Solutions enhances linkages among managers, policy-makers and researchers

CEIS

Box 5

add to existing and planned resources and

The initiative to advance Ecological Researchfor Sustainability would involve thoughtfulcoordination of a set of new programs, a newcenter, and an existing center to:

Enhance access to the latest and bestexpertise and toolsPIER (Programs forIntegrative Ecological Research). Ecologistshave a proud history of designing their own tools,whether they are computer programs, statisticalpackages, or equipment for collecting dataeverything from cameras that record nocturnalvisits by shy wild animals to adaptations of plasticplumbing fixtures that catch nematodes as theytravel through the soil. But as research becomesincreasingly complex, ecological science needsthe latest, most applicable expertise, facilities,and technology. Presently, such services areeither not available or are being met only on anindividual basis. The program should be able tooffer small grants for idea development that isforward-lookingthat is, anticipatoryresearch.

Further, this initiative would play a pivotal rolein forging research collaborations (expertisematch-making) and would be a clearinghousefor the latest information on technology andmethods relevant to ecological science.

The present lack of such a clearinghouse whereinformation and guidance can be obtained isseriously hampering research progress. Manyindividual scientists have been able to overcomethis hurdle, but doing so requires a great deal of

time and effort, and will demand even more asresearchers probe ever deeper into thecomplexities of ecological sustainability. A farmore efficient arrangement would be for theinformation center to be operated by experts whocan keep up with ever-changing technology andinformation.

This program would have the specific missionof assisting in the creation of novel ideas andaccessing the most applicable, up-to-dateexpertise, facilities, and technology. We canaccomplish this through staff experience in suchareas as information management, analytical/modeling/statistical tools, and technology;creation of opportunities for multidisciplinarycollaborations to form and to develop thecapacity to conduct comprehensive ecologicalresearch; and serving as a Web-basedclearinghouse for the latest information ontechnology, tools, and methods relevant toecological science.

An explicit goal of the program would be toencourage ecologists to undertake ambitious,comprehensive studies that remain investigator-driven and are likely to yield substantial gains inecological understanding.

Support existing initiatives that addressecological challengesERIN and NCEAS.ERIN (the proposed Ecological ResearchInfrastructure Network) would forge aninternational network of regional observatorieswith field sites, intensive sensor networks,analytical laboratories, and experimentalmanipulationsto address key ecologicalchallenges. Layered across this regional systemwould be an international network ofexperiments and monitoring infrastructuredesigned to address the ecological challenges thatare fundamental to our goal of moving towardsustainability. We could form the network almostimmediately by linking together and adding toexisting and proposed research networks (e.g.,

the building blocks needed for a proactive andresponsive future ecology. Furthermore, in aneffort to maximize and integrate similar efforts,this initiative would promote collaborations withother such entities (e.g., Consortium ofUniversities for the Advancement of HydrologicScience Inc. [CUAHSI]; Collaborative Large-Scale Engineering Analysis Network forEnvironmental Research [CLEANER]).

24

NEON, LTER, OBFS, CUAHSI, CLEANER)and enhancing their research infrastructure,capabilities, and coordination.

The National Center for Ecological Analysis andSynthesis (NCEAS) already exists in the UnitedStates (UC-Santa Barbara) and successfullyapplies a collaborative and integrative approachto the advancement of ecological understanding asa supporter of synthetic research, development ofnovel modeling, simulation, and other analyticalmethods, and technical training. We envision anexpanded role internationally and Web-basedmethods so that it would be an informationclearinghouse for synthetic approaches. Westrongly endorse continuation of NCEAS, and wesupport efforts by federal agencies to ensure thecoordination of the existing networks.

Another initiative, the Centers for the EcologicalImplementation of Solutions (CEIS) wasdescribed earlier in ID Action 1. We view centerssuch as these as absolutely essential to ensure thatmanagers and policy makers work much moreclosely with researchers.

Overall, the Ecological Research for SustainabilityInitiative is large in scope but vitally important ifwe are to move ecological research toward a futurein which it effectively informs decisions at regional,national, and international scales. Each of the fourcomponents would develop programmatic areasrelated to its own mission. Some functions wouldbe fulfilled as a virtual facility, while other elementsof function would take place on-site. As a whole,this assembly would serve as a large, virtual instituteand as a portal to a broad range of informationand services that will be essential to past and futureecological knowledge and its application.

To more fully develop details and responsibilitiesof the Ecological Research for SustainabilityInitiative components and the opportunities theycan provide, ESA, with the help of itsmembership, should secure support to work with

Area B. Create new incentives to recognizeand encourage anticipatory and innovativeresearch.

Ecologists must begin to look inward at ways inwhich their own institutional and personal culturemay help or hinder a broad, maximally innovativeapproach to advancing ecological understanding.For example, ecologists need to become willing tocoordinate their efforts in unprecedented ways: toconstruct and obtain large-scale, high-resolutiondatasets needed to address many current challengesin ecology. They also need to reach out to fundingagencies with a clear, unified voice in ways thathave been successful for other disciplines, and thatcould drive funding changes that will allowecological science to address large, complexquestions. These changes will require incentives aswell as training for ecologists in the managerialhurdles encountered at this large scale.

Ecology must not only recognize, but also reward,the contributions made by innovations intechnology, synthesis, informatics, and quantitativeapproaches. Degrees in physics, chemistry, andengineering are frequently earned based on thecreation of new methods or instruments. Thispipeline of innovation provides a steady supply ofnew tools that become broadly useful across thediscipline. In contrast, it is a rare student in ecologywho earns a degree in this fashion, despite thesubstantial impact it might have on the field.

Students are also typically not encouraged topursue degrees that are largely based on synthesisof existing information, yet such synthesis is an

25

the ecological community to gatherinformation, analyze options, and makerecommendations regarding the componentscharacteristics. While NSF and other agenciesmight support these workshops and some portionof the institutes themselves, specific efforts shouldbe made to engage other public and private entitiesthat might be interested in this approach.

absolutely essential and growing branch ofecological science (NSF-ERE 2003). Currenttraining does not prepare young scientists andtechnicians in ecology to utilize ecoinformatics tools.Furthermore, modern ecology increasingly relieson a substantial level of quantitative and computerliteracy; thus students in ecology should haverigorous quantitative training as a core part of theirgraduate programs. Continuing technical educationfor ecologists at all career stages is particularlyimportant, given the pace at which availabletechnologies are changing.

Incentives and recognition are powerful motivatorsin science, and ecology is no exception. We identifyhere several key incentives that would producesignificant strides toward motivating and recognizingthe major scientific developments needed for theecology of the 21st Century.

Recommended Actions:

AR Action 2. Seek a Nobel or EquivalentPrize in Ecology. While there are some prominentinternational awards open to ecological scientists(e.g., the Blue Planet Prize), there is no award ofcomparable prestige to the Nobel Prize for ourdiscipline. There are international awards forenvironmental stewardship, but no high-visibilityawards targeting the ecological sciences are givenfrom within our disciplinary communities. This issomewhat astonishing, given the importance of thescience of ecology for the global environment. ANobel or prize of equal prestige in ecology wouldbe a highly visible and effective way to recognizeboth the contributions made by the discipline andthose made by individual scientists. The impact ofsuch an award could be enormous.

Establishment of a new Nobel Prize would be nosmall task. The most recent Nobel Prize wasestablished in 1967 for economics with a largedonation from the Bank of Sweden. Thus, a newNobel Prize or similar award would undoubtedlyrequire both substantial endowment funds and

collaboration with other countries. Nonetheless,success in this venture would guarantee a quantumleap in the visibility of ecological science to theworld. The ESA could initiate and participate in aprocess of exploration of this idea by establishinga committee of influential and respected ecologicalscientists and leaders from outside the discipline tolook at the feasibility of a Nobel Prize or equallyauthoritative new award in ecology.

AR Action 3. Establish an annual award forthe best new instrument or new technology.Ecologists have shown remarkable innovation inborrowing technologies from other arenas. But forthe most part the discipline has not exerted acoordinated and direct influence on both privateand academic engineering sectors in ways thatproduce technologies designed specifically toaddress ecological questions. Active outreach tothese sectorsincluding annual awards for the bestnew instrumentis essential. The growing need forecological information with relevance toenvironmental problems means that profitablemarkets for such instruments exist. We envision anaward given annually by the ESA for the best newinstrument or new technology that will lead to asignificant increase in ecological understanding.

AR Action 4. Establish an internationalcontest among collaborative groups to solvean annual ecological challenge. We envisionan Eco Challenge along the lines of problem-solving competitions that are conducted inmathematics and engineering. For example, anecological challenge could be given at the ESAsAnnual Meeting, and collaborative groups, perhapswith an emphasis on graduate students, would workto develop solutions. These challenges mightrequire the development of new technologies,analytical approaches, models, and/or experimentaldesigns, and solutions would be evaluated by areview team. At the following years ESA meeting,all solutions would be displayed to highlight thediversity and creativity of alternative solutions. Anaward would be given for the best solution. The

26

Environmental Protection Agency recentlyannounced a design competition forsustainability that is open to students. Weapplaud such efforts.

AR Action 5. Create a prestigious journalon methods development . Theestablishment of a prestigious new journalboth recognizes and encourages research ina particular area. A journal devoted toresearch innovations in ecology would be away of showcasing important new methodswhile providing a high-profile outlet for suchwork. Alternatively, a new section could beadded to existing ESA journals in whichdevelopments in research technology arepublished.

Area C. Promote the standardization ofdata collection, data documentation, anddata sharing.

Ecological analyses, and managementdecisions that rely on them, commonly employhighly diverse data. Unfortunately, much ofthis information has been accumulated andstored in haphazard and inaccessible formsin the nooks and crannies of research. Thismay not have been recognized as a bigproblem before the arrival of the digital age,but now it seems an archaic barrier toprogress. Even when made available,environmental data are often highly distributedand profoundly heterogeneous, and few toolsexist that can acquire and characterize dataand models, and then make them widelyaccessible in a convenient, integrated way.These barriers to data access limit progressin environmental science, and greatly limitdata use by resource managers, economists,political analysts, and other decision makers.

Much of the information that already has beengathered is no longer in useful formats, evenfor those who collected it. Progress in

environmental science may most be limitednow not by our lack of information, but bythe fact that vast amounts of existing data aresimply not accessible.

A revolution in information technology that willease the generation of ecological knowledgeis occurring in response to a growing need todocument, store, retrieve, manipulate,analyze, and display data (Estrin et al. 2003).Information technology research is yieldingmechanisms for ecologists to document theirdata using standardized protocols, and storetheir data in carefully managed, widelyaccessible archives. These data can then feedinto the conceptual frameworks and analyticaltools described above. Thus, ecology couldgreatly profit from the development oftechnological means, cultural inducements,and training opportunities to effectivelyrepresent ecological knowledge. This can bedone via a suite of widely available tools forthe seamless integration of data, theory,concepts, and models.

To implement this vision, we proposeincreased effort in technology developmentand training in ecoinformatics and EcologicalCyberInfrastructure (ECI) (Box 6). ECIprovides the link between people and thedata, hardware, software, and other tools forcreating and displaying ecological knowledge.Advancements in ECI require thedevelopment of generic tools for data input,access, and analysis. Ecological data shouldbe digitally captured early in the acquisitionprocess, while concurrently generatingmetadata (information about the data itself).Data then must be easily and widelyaccessible to individuals even in the mostremote areas of the world through a set ofgeneric data access tools. The goal is to linkthe vast body of data resources, whether theyare small compilations, or large well-knowndata sources. The key tools are an efficient,

27

flexible, and standardized way to describeecological information, and a powerfulinformation searching capability. One importantresult will be the enormous savings in theecologists timetime that could be devoted tomore forward-thinking research.

Both undertakings were made possible bymodern digital technology. They are vastimprovements in the traditional ways ofecological record keeping and recovery. In thenot too distant past, ecologists (and otherscientists) kept their handwritten records inwaterproof field books, filed in dusty boxes oron office shelves. Some still do. Only the authormay have known where the information couldbe found, and after the authors retirement ordeath, the sometimes valuable data would be lostto science.

Once scientists acquire datasets, they must beable to quickly analyze them, and transport theminto appropriate visualization tools that make thedata understandable. It will then be possible to

rapidly find, download, and analyze disparatedatasets to test an idea much in the way we nowuse abstracts of articles to get a sense of whether anew idea warrants our further consideration.Sophisticated visualization tools, including maps andlandscape-based Geographical Information System(GIS) data and virtual imaging, will makecommunication within and beyond the scientificcommunity easier and more effective, and allowmajor advances in ecological modeling. Throughimproved generic data input, access, and analysistools, standardized metadata, and open access toenvironmental data, more comprehensive analysisand synthesis of ecological knowledge will bepossible. Both the original gatherer of the data andthe science world at large will be the beneficiariesas will, eventually, Earths health.

Several of the actions we recommend arealready being considered by others. This is veryencouraging. For example, the NSFs LongTerm Ecological Research (LTER) network hasmade great strides in some of the action areasbelow.

Box 6

Ecoinformatics and ECI The International Society for Ecological Informatics offers this definition of ecoinformations: Ecological Informatics is defined as interdisciplinary framework promoting the use of advanced computational technology for the elucidation of principles of information processing at and between all levels of complexity of ecosystemsfrom genes to ecological networksand aiding transparent decision making in relation to important issues in ecology such as sustainability, biodiversity and global warming. Many other disciplinesmedicine, agricultural research, and engineering are only a feware working toward perfecting their own informatics resources. Ecological CyberInfrastructure is a close relative to informatics. According to the National Science Foundation, ECI can produce an integrated high-end system of hardware, software, and services that will allow scientists to work on advanced research and education problems that would not otherwise be solvable.

28

AR Action 8. Convince funding agencies andfederal agencies to require and support openaccess to data.

AR Action 9. Encourage training inecoinformatics both during graduate schooland in ongoing programs. The ESA couldpromote ongoing training through regular trainingworkshops and opportunities at its Annual Meeting.

Summary - Innovative andAnticipatory Research

Ecology is by its very nature an interdisciplinaryscience, making it impossible for any single ecologistto be well-versed in the details of every relevantdiscipline, method, or instrument. Yet, it is

increasingly obvious that ecologists must cometogether to help understand, solve, and anticipatethe environmental issues facing our world. To doso, ecologists may need to think of themselves asentrepreneurs in a shifting and pressure-drivenmarketplace, where strategic collaborations andrapid responses are keys to scientific success. Ourbest chance to succeed in those efforts is to have abroadly inclusive approach to ecological research.This approach must include actively recruitingexpertise beyond our discipline, as well as changingour own culture to best foster the innovations weneed. We are, in effect, a company facing enormouschallenges, but ones that, if met, will haveimmeasurable rewards. Like any successfulcompany, we must therefore be willing to changeour approach and structure rapidly to keep pacewith the demands of