What Drives Declining Support for Long-Term Ecological Research?

BioScience ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-173
Author(s):  
John A Vucetich ◽  
Michael Paul Nelson ◽  
Jeremy T Bruskotter

Abstract Several recent papers have reinvigorated a chronic concern about the need for ecological science to focus more on long-term research. For a few decades, significant voices among ecologists have been assembling elements of a case in favor of long-term ecological research. In this article and for the first time, we synthesize the elements of this case and present it in succinct form. We also argue that this case is unlikely to result in more long-term research. Finally, we present ideas that, if implemented, are more likely to result in appropriate levels of investment in long-term research in ecological science. The article comes at an important time, because the US National Science Foundation is currently undertaking a 40-year review of its Long-Term Ecological Research Network.

2021 ◽  
pp. 100025
Author(s):  
Tamara K. Harms ◽  
Peter M. Groffman ◽  
Lihini Aluwihare ◽  
Chris Craft ◽  
William R Wieder ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Henry L. Gholz ◽  
Roberta Marinelli

Evolution of the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program has required highly motivated leadership in both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the science community. It has also benefited from inspired leaders in other agencies. Core research areas enable comparative study across highly diverse field sites. The LTER program promotes integrative ecological research and is an important model for other environmental research programs. New observational capabilities and emerging networks will change the operating environment for the LTER program in unforeseen ways. The conceptualization and implementation of the LTER program that began in the mid-1970s have depended on the dedicated guidance and input from a large number of individuals within NSF management, within other agencies (particularly the US Forest Service), and in the science and education communities that they serve. The authors served as NSF program directors for the LTER program, respectively, for 10, 8, and 14 years between 1997 and 2011, in the Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO), Office of Polar Programs (OPP), and the Geosciences Directorate (GEO). From that context, we offer our perspectives on this remarkable program. Several central issues have dominated the development of the LTER program since its inception in 1980. These issues are the designation of core thematic research areas, the establishment of new sites and the expansion of NSF program involvement, the evolution of comparative and synthetic science across multiple LTER sites, the dynamics of top-down (NSF-driven) and bottom-up (principal investigator–driven) efforts that have coalesced to produce the present-day network, and the development of new environmental observing capabilities that should enhance the future scientific impact of the LTER program. The specification and emphasis on five core research areas (Waide, Chapter 2) as elements of the LTER program, which served as part of the initial rationale for the formation of the program, have varied over time and with changes in program management at NSF. Our consensus is that core research themes provide a major vehicle for integrative research, both comparative and synthetic, and additionally, serve as a strong guide for programmatic review.


BioScience ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 60 (11) ◽  
pp. 931-940 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey C. Johnson ◽  
Robert R. Christian ◽  
James W. Brunt ◽  
Caleb R. Hickman ◽  
Robert B. Waide

Ecosphere ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Iwaniec ◽  
Michael Gooseff ◽  
Katharine N. Suding ◽  
David Samuel Johnson ◽  
Daniel C. Reed ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 755-768
Author(s):  
Emma L. Burns ◽  
Philip Tennant ◽  
Chris R. Dickman ◽  
Graeme Gillespie ◽  
Peter T. Green ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Christopher Hamlin

There are many precedents for long-term research in the history of science. Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program’s current identity reflects significant change—intended and accidental, both consensual and conflictual—from research concerns that were prevalent in the 1980s. LTER program has pioneered modes of research organization and professional norms that are increasingly prominent in many areas of research and that belong to a significant transformation in the social relations of scientific research. The essays in this volume explore the impact of the LTER program, a generation after its founding, on both the practice of ecological science and the careers of scientists. The authors have applied the agenda of long- term scrutiny to their own careers as LTER researchers. They have recognized the LTER program as distinct, even perhaps unique, both in the ways that it creates knowledge and in the ways that it shapes careers. They have reflected on how they have taught (and were taught) in LTER settings, on how they interact with one another and with the public, and on how research in the LTER program has affected them “as persons.” A rationale for this volume is LTER’s distinctiveness. In many of the chapters, and in other general treatments of the LTER program, beginning with Callahan (1984), one finds a tone of defensiveness. Sometimes the concerns are explicit: authors (e.g., Stafford, Knapp, Lugo, Morris; Chapters 5, 22, 25, 33, respectively) bemoan colleagues who dismiss LTER as mere monitoring instead of serious science or who resent LTER’s independent funding stream. But more broadly, there is concern that various groups, ranging from other bioscientists to the public at large, may not appreciate the importance of long-term, site-specific environmental research. Accordingly, my hope here is to put LTER into several broader contexts. I do so in three ways. First, to mainstream LTER within the history of science, I show that the LTER program is not a new and odd way of doing science but rather exemplifies research agendas that have been recognized at least since the seventeenth century in the biosciences and beyond.


Author(s):  
Melinda D. Smith

I am a plant community and ecosystem ecologist who has conducted research within the context of the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) network from the beginning of my scientific career, now almost two decades ago. My research has benefited greatly from site-based research at the Konza Prairie (KNZ) LTER site, as well as from network-level syntheses utilizing data sets and knowledge produced by the collective of LTER sites. My involvement in the KNZ LTER site, in particular, has shown me the strength of conducting site-based research, yet my involvement in synthesis activities within the LTER network and beyond has illuminated the limitations of site-based research for addressing cross-site comparative research. To this end, I have been and continue to be a strong proponent of highly coordinated, multisite experiments, and much of my research is comparative in nature. Being involved in the LTER network from the start of my research career has made me a scientist who is well aware of the benefits and power of collaborative, multidisciplinary research. Because of the benefits and breadth of experiences that I have received from such research endeavors, I encourage my graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to also become involved in such research, and I recognize the positive impact collaborative, multidisciplinary research can have on beginning investigators. I believe that individuals outside of the LTER network (ranging from established principal investigators, to young investigators, to graduate students) are often not fully aware of the benefits of being involved in the LTER network or of the advances in ecological understanding that it has made possible. Thus, there is a need for the LTER network to be more proactive and creative in the ways that it attracts new researchers to get involved in the site-based or network-level research. Ultimately, the LTER network will only benefit from increased involvement by new investigators, who also could serve the role of leading the LTER network in the future. I have been affiliated with the LTER program since beginning as a graduate student at Kansas State University.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
José H. Muelbert ◽  
Nicholas J. Nidzieko ◽  
Alicia T. R. Acosta ◽  
Stace E. Beaulieu ◽  
Angelo F. Bernardino ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
José H. Muelbert ◽  
Nicholas J. Nidzieko ◽  
Alicia T. R. Acosta ◽  
Stace E. Beaulieu ◽  
Angelo F. Bernardino ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document