Research Priorities in Ocean Science
Comments from Federation Presidents on
Charting
the Course for Ocean Science in the United States:
Research
Priorities for the Next Decade
on behalf
of the
Estuarine
Research Federation
October 13,
2006
The Estuarine Research Federation (ERF) is the nation’s premier professional society of scientists investigating coastal environments in the transition from land to the ocean. Its 1,650 members and the additional 1,000 members of its affiliate regional societies are dedicated to advancing human understanding and appreciation of Earth's estuaries and coasts, to the wise use and management of these environments and to making the results of their research and management actions available to their colleagues and to the public. These members include academic researchers, public sector scientists and managers, teachers, consultants, students and others who are interested in estuaries, bays and other coastal environments. The Federation publishes the internationally renowned journal, Estuaries and Coasts (formerly published as Estuaries).
On behalf of its members, presidents of ERF, past and present, collaborated in preparing these comments on the August 30, 2006 draft report, Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States: Research Priorities for the Next Decade, prepared by the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) of the National Science and Technology Council as a part of the President’s Ocean Action Plan.
General Comments
The draft report presents a compelling set of priorities for U.S. ocean research for the next decade that begin to address the challenges and needs identified in the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. These priorities are appropriately focused and developed within six societal themes that provide long missing guidance for the federal research enterprise across the agencies. These priorities would ensure societal relevance while allowing ample room for scientific innovation and discovery. ERF is pleased to see that the plan recognizes that fundamental research and risk taking are critical to the success of the national scientific enterprise. The six socially responsive themes are suitably broad and encompassing, allowing latitude for further development of specific research efforts that appropriately respond to the themes. In addition to being comprehensive, the report makes a compelling case for the need to do a much better job of tackling these interconnected issues now. The Estuarine Research Federation agrees with the content and descriptions of the framing, opportunities, and strategic and near-term priorities, and commends the JSOST for its effort.
The Land-Ocean Margin Transition
Because of the Federation’s focus on estuarine and coastal environments, ERF is particularly interested in the treatment within the Charting the Course report of the broad, land-margin transition, from watersheds draining into U.S. territorial water to the continental margins. All six societal themes address intersecting issues within this transition zone where the bulk of the nation’s natural and cultural resources, exposure to natural hazards and human health risks, marine operations, and unhealthy marine ecosystems occur. It is the region in which there is an urgent need for ecosystem-based management that is called for in the Commission on Ocean Policy Report. This transition zone also represents a critical focal point for research priorities identified in the present report. Furthermore, some of the more important consequences of climate variability and change are experienced in the land-ocean margin transition.
ERF is pleased to see that “ocean” is used here to refer to a broad set of environments, including open ocean, coasts and estuaries, and coastal watersheds and, in particular, the need to incorporate watersheds in plans for fundamental science and research addressing stewardship of natural resources, climate change, and ecosystem health. We recommend that the research priorities plan more explicitly mention the integration of watershed and ocean science and fully address this in the implementation strategy to ensure that the science gaps across the land-ocean transition are effectively bridged. Examples of issues that require research across the land-ocean transition include assessment of changing fluxes of fresh water, sediments, nutrients, carbon and contaminants, as well as migrations and larval recruitment processes of fishery species that transcend ocean, estuarine and riverine environments. Science programs that address terrestrial and freshwater environments are often organized in different agencies (e.g. Departments of Interior and Agriculture versus the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) or divisions within agencies (e.g., in the National Science Foundation). How, then, will the federal ocean research plan engage and integrate with critical research on the continent?
Executive Summary
While the Charting the Course report is about the right length and level of detail, the Executive Summary, at seven pages, may strain the limits of attention for the true executive-level reader. Although the Executive Summary is faithful to the body of the report, it may benefit from some condensation. Because of the potential for confusion regarding the broad definition of “ocean” as explained later in the footnote on page 10 and its more commonly understood and narrower meaning, it would be helpful to refer to “ocean, coastal zone and Great Lakes” in the opening sentence of the Executive Summary.
Focusing the Nation’s Ocean Research Enterprise
This transitional section of the report is very important, not only for setting the stage for what follows, but for establishing principles for further planning and implementation of research priorities. The first subsection does a good job in presenting the societal drivers for the research priorities, while the third subsection clearly establishes the need for fundamental science as an essential part of the nation’s ocean research investments. The second section, addressing framing the approach, will be particularly important in implementing the research priorities developed under the six themes identified in the concluding subsection.
Emphasis on and linkage among discovery, understanding and application are as important as the strategic investments in research for achieving the societal relevance that is the basis for the plan. These three components are essentially the same as those articulated by Ernest Boyer in his seminal book Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990, re-released in 1997) that has been used by some universities to transform the work of faculty. In addition to teaching, Boyer argues that the responsibilities of scholarship include discovery, integration and application. In fact, “integration,” which Boyer describes as “making connections across the disciplines, placing the specialties in larger context, illuminating data in a revealing way” that "seeks to interpret, draw together, and bring new insight to bear on original research," may be a better term than “understanding” as used here.
Stewardship of Our Natural & Cultural Ocean Resources
We offer the following comments on this section:
- The section begins by discussing the cumulative effects of human activities. While these might be considered as habitat/species interactions, some modification of this wording would make the inclusion of these factors clearer. Furthermore, this section and the others under this theme do not specifically address one of the more important human activities that affect the ecosystems supporting living resources, resource extraction itself (bottom habitat disturbances, bycatch, top-down cascading effects on the ecosystem, etc.). The consequences of resource extraction deserve more explicit consideration in the research priorities.
- As written the second research priority implies that interspecies and habitat/species relationships completely control resource sustainability. Surely, climatologic and stochastic processes also affect resource recruitment and should be addressed in research and modeling.
- The third research priority, concerning human-use patterns, could be improved with an explicit statement about research needed to evaluate the success of different management strategies (e.g., marine protected areas vs. closure vs. gear size restrictions).
- The last research priority, applying advanced technologies, should be reworded. Here, we are really talking about the application of advanced technologies “to reduce the impact of human uses of the oceans and Great Lakes on natural resources.” It is important to make the distinction between minimizing the adverse impact of human activities such as resource extraction and aquaculture on wild population from activities which might enhance natural resources like restoration.
- In the necessary tools section, other important areas in which stewardship could be enhanced, such as habitat and resource restoration activities and controlling the introduction of exotics, might be mentioned. Also, the requirements and opportunities for international cooperation in research on open-ocean species and [shared fishery stocks] should be mentioned.
Increasing Resilience to Natural Hazards
The plan focuses heavily on forecasting hazards and less on research needed to mitigate hazards. Although long-term changes such as sea-level rise are occasionally mentioned, the emphasis is on being able to predict storms, extreme events, and changes in regimes such as El Niño. Forecasting these events is very useful, but the growing hazards posed by secular changes (e.g. climate change or over development) should also be considered. As the report nicely explains, the economic value of forecasting regime changes and the ability to predict or forewarn extreme events is critical to marine operations and for preventing the loss of human life. However, over the long term forecasts alone will not prevent economic loss or habitat destruction. ERF suggests that more emphasis should be placed on research to: (1) understand (so we can eventually modify) the social and economic drivers of land use in the coastal zone and (2) evaluate the short and long-term successes and failures of [protection systems] that might minimize the adverse affect of storm surges and waves. Such research should explicitly include long-term strategies to deal with potentially large dislocations of people due to rising sea level and to enhance the protective role of wetlands and reefs. Research is also needed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of engineered systems (such as hurricane barriers and levees). Page 28 (lines 7-8) mentions the fact that hazards can impact coastal features such as wetlands and shorelines with cascading impacts but does not acknowledge that these features can also amplify or mitigate hazards.
Enabling Marine Operations
Marine operations, including shipping, fishing, recreation and energy and mineral extraction activities, are particularly concentrated in the land-ocean transition zone and demand concerted attention from the perspectives of both human safety and environmental health. Marine operations must also be considered in ecosystem-based management. In that regard ERF notes the many challenges related to our ports (navigation channels, ballast water and invasive species, dredged material placement, shoreline development, and safe operations) that merit further research. Also, marine operations constitute an important client for the integrated observing systems discussed elsewhere in the plan. We also note that the final two research priorities under this theme are close enough to combine them as one.
The Ocean’s Role in Climate
ERF strongly supports the research priorities under this theme. Understanding of the role of climate variability has progressed to the point of allowing forecasting in the land-ocean transition and integration into ecosystem-based management. Moreover, understanding climate change, including its consequences and necessary adaptations, is the grand challenge of our scientific generation. Overall, we believe this section captures important priorities well with some exceptions. Research into the controls on oceanic dimethylsulfide (DMS) emission and the role of dust as a control on oceanic productivity and carbon sequestration might also be mentioned. We are pleased to see paleoceanographic approaches mentioned, but for some of these parameters (dust and DMS) ice core data may be more useful and should not be overlooked. Finally, to be effective and efficient research and observations related to climate variability and change must involve other nations and international organizations.
The research priorities extend so far as to understand and project the impact of climate change, but they stop short of applying that knowledge to deal with these impacts. Although mitigation of and adaptation to climate change might be the subjects of other federal planning, how the ocean research plan will interface with these efforts deserves mention here. Such discussion could include mention of renewable energy alternatives involving the coastal ocean such as tidal and wind power, carbon sequestration, and adaptation of coastal land use and management.
Improving Ecosystem Health
The research goals addressing this societal theme are very broad could be improved with more focus. For the first goal, the report mentions the importance of the terrestrial system but, as discussed above, how the research will make the connection between the watershed and the airshed needs to be stressed more. Also it seems to us that there are a number of pervasive problems that are national in scale and require a concerted federal research strategy. High among these would have to be the changes in the flux of key nutrients (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorus and silica) and contaminants from the land to the coastal ocean that underlie much of the ecosystem deterioration (dead zones, harmful algal blooms, etc.) seen around the country. These are the subjects of numerous regional management efforts, but presently are not subject of strategic research at a national level. There are other potential targets, e.g. coastal wetland loss, invasive species, etc., that would benefit from national strategies within this theme.
Another theme mentioned here and elsewhere is the incorporation of new information and understanding into adaptive management practices. Adaptive management involves understanding expressed in models, but it also requires treating management efforts as experiments with a heavy reliance on monitoring of outcomes. Consequently, the federal research priorities and their implementation must provide new opportunities for research on ecosystem responses to management activities and for integration of research with the nation’s extensive environmental monitoring programs.
Enhancing Human Health
Here, again, the focus is more on forecasting than on mitigation of human health risks. ERF suggests that the research priorities would be strengthened with consideration of how understanding and forecasts can be applied to protect human health. Potential new topics include research on improved methods to treat storm water runoff and other sources of pathogen contamination in coastal waters, on ways to minimize mercury emissions, and on possible ways to predict and possibly terminate harmful algal blooms. Also, the consequences of climate variability and change on human health should be given attention as an integrative research focus.
Opportunities for Progress
This section contains two elements each of which is of great interest to the Estuarine Research Federation: developing tools and making a difference. The Charting the Course report places emphasis on observing systems as a critical tool, as does the Ocean Commission report. ERF supports the further development of observing systems and a national integrated ocean observing system, but raises some points for consideration in this research plan. First, observations are not necessarily scientific research. Research and observations feed on each other, and this feedback is critical for both. But support for operational activities should not come at the cost of support for scientific research . Second, while there is mention in the general statements about linkages to watersheds, the report should address how atmospheric, terrestrial, and freshwater observing systems will be sustained and integrated with those made in the open ocean and coastal ocean. It is a sad fact that we have lost many important capabilities over the last decade with cut backs to USGS water quantity and quality monitoring. Third, U.S. observing system activities must be explicitly integrated into international efforts in order to maximize their power and success. Finally, ocean observing systems require sustained implementation and operations and cannot provide the much needed data if they are reliant on annual congressional appropriations. Nonetheless, we have to be realistic about costs and focus on the most useful deployments and applications of observing systems, including not only computational capacity and sensor development, but also data management and analysis.
We particularly endorse the recommendations concerning information to support decision-making. If the research priorities plan is going to be truly effective in addressing the societal themes, concerted efforts along the lines described here will be needed. While professional communicators often do a great job in translating research results into readily utilized products, research scientists themselves can be assisted in more effectively communicating to managers and decision makers. Furthermore, the level of scientific understanding within the management community can be enhanced. The plan should address ways to train both scientists and decision makers to communicate more effectively.
The subsection on an ocean-literate nation focuses on ocean science education. While this is certainly desirable, the nation’s fundamental educational needs in mathematics and science are so great that these efforts should be considered in the context of and as means of increasing math and science literacy. The public’s understanding of the ocean would evolve naturally with better general science and math education. Conversely, developing literacy about the ocean and coastal zone where so many Americans live can be an effective means for developing basic science and mathematics skills. Among the informal education centers that deserve particular mention in the context of the ocean research priorities plan are marine laboratories. Most marine laboratories are already engaged in informal and formal education and provide the opportunity for research discoveries and understanding to transition directly to students and the public.
The capacity to translate research results into information for decision support is correctly identified as a particular need under maintaining intellectual capacity. Targeted investments by federal agencies are required to support graduate training in this area.
The Path Forward
ERF supports the three key science and technology efforts identified under overarching opportunities, namely developing understanding to support forecasts; collecting and synthesizing information needed to support ecosystem-based management, especially for coastal and nearshore ecosystems; and accelerating deployment of a national ocean observing system. Furthermore, we believe that, as recommended by the Ocean Commission, requirements for ecosystem-based management should dictate priorities for both forecasting and the development of the national observing system.
ERF also supports the three near-term priorities as focal points for achieving significant advances over the next two to five years. However, we believe that broader activities that address the priorities identified under the six themes could begin during this time period. Forecasting the response of coastal ecosystems to persistent forcing and extreme events must go beyond integration of observations and models; these approaches should be complemented with appropriate experimental and theoretical studies. ERF also endorses comparative analysis of marine ecosystem organization as a near-term priority. We think that dismissal of experimental approaches to this end is perhaps overstated. In fact, the comparisons of the efficacy of ecosystem management strategies described as the second approach would benefit from experimental design and analysis. We also point out that closures are not the only kinds of ecosystem management strategies that should be compared. More comparisons of continental shelf and estuarine ecosystems around the United States can provide insights into geographic variations in ecosystem structure and function and region-specific strategies that might be useful elsewhere. Improved sensor capabilities are important near-term goals, but it is important that these developments should be driven by the needs of science and management and not by technology for its own sake.
We underscore the importance of assessing meridional overturning circulation variability to understanding Earth’s climate system, but we recognize that this topic is generally considered to lie outside the realm of coastal science. This is an issue for which a concentrated effort in an observing system might really pay off. Although we are not convinced that two to five years is long enough to “accurately establish the true variability,” it is definitely a start. As coastal scientists, we point out that better measurements and understanding of the flow of fresh water into the Arctic Ocean, particularly from Asia, are required as part of this assessment. Related research should be incorporated into international science programs.
The Next Steps
The Charting the Course report is a very good start. The Estuarine Research Federation looks forward to the JSOST implementation strategy for these national ocean research priorities and stands ready to assist in any way appropriate.
ERF Presidents Contributing to These Comments
Dennis M. Allen, University
of South Carolina
Donald F. Boesch, University
of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Robert R. Christian, East Carolina
University
Christopher F. D’Elia, University
of South Florida St. Petersburg
Anne E. Giblin, Marine Biological
Laboratory
Frederic H. Nichols, U.S. Geological
Survey (retired)
Robert J. Orth, Virginia Institute
of Marine Science
Candace A. Oviatt, University
of Rhode Island
Nancy N. Rabalais, Louisiana
Universities Marine Consortium
Linda C. Schaffner, Virginia
Institute of Marine Science
Jerry R. Schubel, Long Beach
Aquarium of the Pacific
| Contact: |
Dr. Donald F. Boesch |