Build the Capacity to Conduct Ecological Forecasts
Moderators: Woody Turner, NASA and Jack Hill, USGS Rapporteurs: Liz Blood, NSF and Bruce Jones, EPA The session was opened with a presentation summarizing the concept of ecological forecasting. This included a definition and goal, a brief review of the history of weather forecasting as a potential model for ecosystems work, a set of forecasting examples, and the set of broad questions and areas that the group was asked to address. Many of the comments reflected what participants thought was necessary to conduct ecological forecasts rather than specific issues in the technical or strategic plans. 1. What are the User Requirements for an Ecological Forecasting System? The discussion on user requirements was focused around three broad areas. First, several comments were made about the interoperability between the ecological forecasting theme and the other societal themes being pursued by the IEOS program. Participants wanted to see strong data and model linkages across the themes with the idea that nearly all of the issues being explored within individual themes required data and models from other themes, and that in some cases findings and forecasts in one area would benefit forecasts in others. For example, forecasts for drought and severe weather are important drivers and model inputs for ecological forecasts. Similarly, results of ecological forecasts are important drivers and inputs for fire forecasts, flood forecasts, etc. A second broad area of comments focused on the need for developing near-term (2-4 years) forecasting systems for invasive species spread, pathogen and disease outbreak and spread, land cover change, and vulnerability of biological diversity hotspots. Participants felt it was important to develop, pilot test, and demonstrate what forecasting can contribute to these critical national issues. The third general user requirement focused around providing access and capabilities to a wide range of users, from local/community scale on up to regional planners. Some of the capabilities included doing cost-benefit analysis and ecological valuation (of important services), assisting with adaptive management (e.g., forecasts inform and result in midterm changes in adaptive management plans), use and interpretation of a set of indicators that relate to forecasting changes, and providing uncertainty estimates with results. Finally, participants felt that one of the unique areas of focus for the ecological forecasting theme should be on forecasts related to natural ecosystems and their biological components that contribute to important ecological benefits and services.
2. Are the set of existing inventories and plans for Earth observations identified in the Strategic Plan and discipline Technical Reference reports complete and accurate? Several existing monitoring and assessment systems were identified as potentially contributing to a broader ecological forecasting effort. These programs included: (1) EPA Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program (ReVA), the Southeast Ecological Framework, EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), the USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, the program dealing with Salmon-landscape interactions in the Pacific Northwest, NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay forecasting system for jellyfish, the USGS/NASA Invasive Species Forecasting System, the Heinz Center report of the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems, sustainability indicators that have been developed in Oregon, ecological classifications developed by Federal agencies such as the Forest Service (Bailey’s Ecoregions, ECOMAP), some of the downscaling of climate models by NOAA and other investigators, and the LifeMapper application. Although none of these programs provide a comprehensive approach for ecological forecasting, in total they deal with or address most of the issues needed to initiate an ecological forecasting capability. 3. Do the gaps and challenges in each section appropriately reflect needed capacity to formulate an Integrated Earth Observation System? Participants identified a number of challenges and gaps related to our current ability to conduct ecological forecasts. Many of these issues were related to gaps in the current state of the science including but not limited to: (1) data and model integration and compatibility across multiple scales, (2) application of historical data to understand potential future pathways and to develop models, (3) development of ecological indicators and models that provide early warning of potential harmful future change (most ecological indicators and models deal with estimates of current conditions and don’t capture changes in important processes), as well as indicators that can be used for adaptive management, (4) inclusions of important socio-economic drivers and indicators in ecological forecasts, as well as better descriptions and valuations of ecological services, (5) robust statistical and modeling approaches for cross-scale analysis and interpretation, (6) linkages and integration among the many scientific disciplines needed to conduct ecological forecasts, and (7) linkages between ecological conditions and forecasts, and human health and quality of life. Participants also identified the need to resolve other important issues such as data compatibility and accessibility, agency commitments to maintaining important core data sets (e.g., Landsat data). Finally, participants felt that ecological forecasting needed to be more clearly defined. What it would address and what would the outcomes of such a system be?
4. What observations, models, data products, decision support and tools are needed to address the gaps in the Integrated Earth Observation System, and who are the key participants? Recommendations for future earth observation capabilities included: (1) acquisition of socio-economic and stressor data at fine enough resolution to evaluate scenarios and to conduct forecasts at multiple scales, (2) potential linkage to non-sensitive homeland security data, (3) addition of in-situ collection of biological and ecological data (enhanced Long-term Ecological Research or LTER sites and implementation of the National Ecological Observatory Network or NEON, (4) deployment and/or further enhancements of synoptic remote sensing sensors that permit measurement of vegetation types, successional stages, and vertical structure of plant communities and ecosystems, (5) implementation of standard ecological indicators and models for specific forecasting needs, (6) links of forecasting results to decision support systems with key “tailored” products for stakeholders and partners, and (7) near-term deployment of ecological forecasting capabilities related to invasive species, disease and pathogens, biological diversity hotspots, and land cover/land use change. In addition to interagency partnerships among the federal agencies, participants felt that it was important to have partnerships with cities and communities that are evaluating quality of life indicators and who have needs for ecological forecasts, with regulatory agencies (permitting and evaluation of regulatory policies), the general public (e.g., through citizen science and schools), Non-Governmental Organizations and other organizations that have ecological forecasting needs (e.g., Partners in Flight, Ducks Unlimited, etc.), the Weather Service, and the GLOBE program to use ecological forecasting information for evaluations by school children. Some of the needs for capacity building identified included: (1) implementation of pilot studies related to important issues to demonstrate the benefits of an ecological forecasting system, (2) incentives for agencies to complete and maintain important biophysical datasets, (3) implementation of a broader-based citizen science and volunteer network (like BBS and the Christmas Bird Count) to collect in-situ data, especially biological data, (4) link to other stressor networks that affect ecological conditions (EPA’s air quality and other stressor networks). Other capacity building needs have been identified in the previous two sections.