Big Ecology: The Emergence of Ecosystem Science

Chapter 3. The Origin and Evolution of the Long-Term Ecological Research Program

89 The Origin and Evolution of the Long-Term Ecological Research Program We shall not cease from exploration. And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. T. S. Eliot, Little Gidding LTER Origins....................................................................................... 91 LTER Planning Workshops................................................................. 92 Core Areas of Research ........................................................................ 94 LTER Chronology ............................................................................... 95 LTER Leaders .................................................................................... 101 Major Research Findings in the LTER.............................................. 107 Intersite Synthesis............................................................................... 121 LTER Meetings.................................................................................. 126 Site Synthesis Publications................................................................. 128 Publications for the General Public................................................... 130 Archiving and Information Management .......................................... 131 The Legacies of the LTER Program................................................. 132 LTER Program Reviews .................................................................... 132 Looking Forward in LTER................................................................ 134 chapter three 90 / The Long-Term Ecological Research Program Networking Internationally in the Age of the LTER: A Case Example with Comparative Insights from Similar Collaboration in the IBP ....................................................... 139 National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) ... 142 Prospects for LTER’s Future.............................................................. 144 The IBP served to consolidate ecosystem ecology, resulting in a permanent increase in funding support for the field. By pioneering in the use of computer modeling in ecology, IBP led to the creation of numerous smaller-scale models of ecological systems, and trained a generation of ecological researchers. “If you now look at a lot of the leadership in American ecology today, these folks cut their teeth on IBP” (W. Frank Harris, pers. comm.). The LTER arose from the IBP, but it was established as part of a gradually evolving network (Hobbie et al., 2003). Using an ecological metaphor, the IBP had a rapid, or “r” growth strategy, reaching its full complement of Biome programs within four years. In comparison, the LTER began slowly and continued its slow growth rate, or “K” strategy, across more than two decades until reaching its current extent of twenty-six sites. With the exception of H. J. Andrews and Coweeta, the IBP Biome studies had only limited applicability to the practical problems of environmental management. Interestingly, a smaller-scale integrated project , the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study (Likens et al., 1977), which had been funded since 1963, before the inception of the IBP, became an example of a fruitful way to proceed in the post-IBP era. Such management oriented studies as how forests recover from clear-cutting and the impact of acid rain on North America, demonstrated the power of taking an ecosystem approach to understanding environmental responses, but proceeded over a longer time scale (decades) than was typical for the IBP projects (Bocking, 1997). The successor programs to the IBP are now integral to the Long-Term Ecological Research program, LTER, which is now in its thirtieth year (2010) and includes The Long-Term Ecological Research Program / 91 five former IBP sites and Hubbard Brook among the twenty-six research programs. In this chapter, I present the development, or ontogeny if you will, of the LTER program. I then present an overview of some of the key players in the development of LTER, including NSF program staff and the Coordinating Committee chairs who have been active in this longrunning program. Major scientific findings are also presented, and some comparisons are made with its predecessor, the IBP.Additional synthesis activities, such as the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) are also discussed. LTER ORIGINS Of the first six LTER sites established in 1980, four of them originated from previous IBP projects. These include the H. J. Andrews site (coniferous forest, Oregon State University, Corvallis); the Coweeta site (deciduous forest, University of Georgia, Athens); North Temperate Lakes (University of Wisconsin, Madison); and Niwot Ridge (alpine tundra, University of Colorado, Boulder). The two new sites were Konza (tallgrass prairie, Kansas State University, Manhattan) and North Inlet (marshland, University of South Carolina, Columbia). An additional twenty-three sites were added across the years, enabling the inclusion of virtually every natural Biome and three largely human-dominated ones (Kellogg Biological Station (agroecosystem, Michigan State University); Baltimore Ecosystem Study (urban, the Institute for Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY); and Central Arizona–Phoenix (urban, Arizona State University, Tempe) in the network. By working with other funding sources within the NSF, a total of four polar projects were funded in part through the Office of Polar Programs: Arctic (Ecosystem Center,Woods Hole, MA); Bonanza Creek (boreal, University of Alaska, Fairbanks); McMurdo Dry Valleys (University of Colorado, Boulder); and Palmer (Ecosystem Center, Woods Hole, MA), the latter two are in the Antarctic . Several other NSF directorates help...