Response to the NEON RFI
TITLE: STREON: Stream experimental and observational network
A 10-year study of the resistance and resilience of aquatic ecosystems to global change
1. Submitting Domain(s) or Consortia:
STREON, a group of 60 doctoral stream research scientists with interests in continental
patterns in stream ecology and terrestrial/ aquatic interfaces
2. RFI Response: Research Design Experimental
3. Lead Scientists
Dr. Walter K. Dodds
Division of Biology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
785 532 6998
wkdodds@ksu.edu
Dr. Margaret A. Palmer
Chesapeake Biological Lab
University of Maryland Center
for Environmental Science
Solomons, MD 20688
410 326 7241
mpalmer@umd.edu
Dr Bradley J. Cardinale
Dept of Ecology, Evolution &
Marine Biology
University of California Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
805 893 4157
cardinale@lifesci.ucsb.edu
4. Key Contributing Scientists: Steering Committee
Dr. Nancy B. Grimm
School of Life Sciences
Arizona State University
PO Box 874501
Tempe, AZ 85287-4501
480 965 4735
nbgrimm@asu.edu
Dr. Stephen K. Hamilton
Michigan State University
Kellogg Biological Station
3700 E. Gull Lake Dr.
Hickory Corners, MI 49060
616 671 2231
hamilton@kbs.msu.edu
Dr. Sherri L. Johnson
USFS PNW Research Station
3200 SW Jefferson Way
Corvallis, OR 97331
541 758 7771
johnsons@fsl.orst.edu
Dr. Matt Whiles
Southern Illinois University
Department of Zoology
Life Sciences II, Room 351
Carbondale, IL 62901-6501
618 4537639
mwhiles@zoology.siu.edu
1
Additional Affiliated Scientists
Scientists
J. Dunham
B. Bowden
J. Melack
J. Jones
T. Tsegaye
C. Pringle
M. Valett
S. S. Kaushal
J. Boyer
J. Trexler
D. McKnight
D. White
M. Bernot
C. Hargrave
S. Earl
J. Tank
K. Gido
G. Tribble
M. Kido
W. McDowell
M. Whiles
E. Stanley
J. Vander Zanden
P. Mulholland
B. Peterson
L. Deegan
J. Ehleringer
T. Crowl
E. Strauss
C. Dahm
K. Miller
J. Sabo
A. Huryn
A. Ward
C.C. Vaughn
L.J. Weider
R. O. Hall
L. Wei
Institution
Oregon State Univ.
Univ. of Vermont
Univ. of California, Santa Barbara
Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Alabama A & M Univ.
Univ. of Georgia
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State Univ.
Univ. of Maryland Ctr of Env Sci
Florida International Univ.
Florida International Univ.
Univ. of Colorado
Murray State Univ.
Murray State Univ.
Sam Houston State Univ.
Arizona State Univ.
Univ. of Notre Dame
Kansas State Univ.
Univ. of Hawaii
Univ. of Hawaii
Univ. of New Hampshire
Southern Illinois Univ.
Univ. of Wisconsin
Univ. of Wisconsin
Oakridge National Laboratory
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole
Univ. of Utah
Utah State Univ.
Fort Hays State Univ.
Univ. of New Mexico
Univ. of New Mexico
Arizona State Univ.
Univ. of Alabama
Univ. of Alabama
Univ. of Oklahoma
Univ. of Oklahoma
Univ. of Wyoming
South Dakota State Univ.
Site
Andrews Experimental Forest
Arctic
California
Caribou Poker Creek
Cole Spring Branch
Coweeta
Coweeta
Code
AND
ARC
SNV
CPC
CSB
CWT
CWT
Eastern Coastal Plain
Everglades
Everglades
Green Lakes Valley; Albion townsite
Hancock Biological Station
Hancock Biological Station
Harmon Creek
Indian Bend Wash
Kellogg Biological Station
Konza Prairie Biological Station
Limahuli Stream, Kauai, Hawaii
Limahuli Stream, Kauai, Hawaii
Luquillo
Middle Mississippi River Wetlands
Northern Lake District
Northern Lake District
Oak Ridge Walker Branch
Plum Island
ACL
FCE
FCE
GLV
HBS
HBS
HAR
IBL
KBS
KNZ
LIM
LIM
LUQ
MMW
NTL
NTL
ORW
PIE
Plum Island
PIE
Red Butte Creek
Red Butte Creek
Saline River
Sevilleta
Sevilleta
Sycamore Creek
Talladega Forest
Talladega Forest
Univ. of Oklahoma Biological Station
Univ. of Oklahoma Biological Station
Upper Snake River
Williston Research Extension Center
RBC
RBC
SAL
SEV
SEV
SYC
TAL
TAL
UOBS
UOBS
SNK
WRE
2
I. Abstract/summary
Humans have greatly altered freshwaters, including depletion and degradation of supplies,
increased nutrient loads, and diminished biodiversity. How these changes will individually and
collectively influence the resistance and resilience of ecosystems, and their interaction with
climate change, is unknown. We propose a long-term, large scale field experiment coupled to a
continental observational network that will quantify how nutrient enrichment, reduced consumer
diversity, and increased hydrologic variability interactively influence the resistance and
resilience of stream ecosystems to global change. The information produced is central to
ecological forecasting for freshwater resources. We focus on streams, rivers, and their related
wetlands subject to water flow (hereafter referred to as streams). Streams are disproportionately
important habitats for biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as economic, recreational and
aesthetic value. Our overarching question is: how will chronic nutrient inputs (nitrogen or
phosphorus), higher probabilities of extreme events (droughts and floods), and simplification
of food webs (loss of consumers) impact the resistance and resilience of stream ecosystem
function (stream-wide respiration, production, and nutrient retention)? We define resistance
and resilience as the proportional change in ecosystem functions following a disturbance and the
return interval, respectively. We will assess linkages and feedbacks among the ecosystem
drivers that are the subject of this proposal.
Streams are ideal ecosystems for the proposed research because they (i) have well
delimited inputs and outputs, thus allowing quantification of the focal ecosystem-level processes,
(ii) are dynamic systems that respond to disturbances over periods of weeks to years - time scales
amenable to observation and experimentation, (iii) can be studied with comparable methods
spanning the entire continent, (iv) are important sites of biogeochemical processing, and (v)
integrate watershed processes that occur at the same scales as NEON network sensor platforms.
Many of these attributes are unique to streams and allow cross-continental research efforts that
are more difficult in other ecosystems. In a companion document, we propose 30 aquatic sites
for a continental scale observational network. Here we propose 19 experimental sites that are
closely paired with a subset of observational sites (controls). Experimental sites will receive a
continuous doubling of limiting nutrient(s), and in situ experiments will remove top consumers.
Natural hydrologic variation will be used to explore long term climate-induced change of flood
and drought, and a subset of the experimental sites will be subjected to direct hydrologic
manipulations. Control and paired experimental sites will be arrayed across the continent to
capture variation in hydrology, temperature, nutrient loading, elevation, and biogeographical
context. To adequately characterize stream ecosystem processes, each observational site will
require 2 aquatic sensor packages and each experimental site will require 2 more (a total of 60 +
38 sensor packages and 30 aquatic biodiversity units). We will require additional measurements
not in the ISEP (total N and total P, decomposition, nutrient limitation, dissolved gas analyses,
and stable isotope and gut-content food web analyses) to effectively characterize community
structure and ecosystem function.
This is one of two linked responses to the NEON RFI’s for observational and
experimental continental networks of stream research. Some sections of these responses are
similar and others are different given the contrasting RFI requirements. The observational
network is a very strong design to assess major drivers influencing streams and wetlands and
how they link to other habitats. The experimental network builds on the observational one to
strengthen the inference for a relatively low added cost.
3
II. Scientific Challenge
Human impacts on Earth's ecosystems are now so pervasive that few systems can be
considered ‘pristine’. Transformation of natural landscapes has benefited society (e.g., food and
energy production), but this has come at a high cost including a more extreme and unpredictable
climate (Zachos et al. 2001), depletion and degradation of freshwater (Postel et al. 1996), and a
catastrophic loss of biological diversity (Sala et al. 2000, MEA 2005). We know much about the
drivers of ecological change, but far less about the potential for ecological systems to adapt,
recover, resist further change, or enter irreversible trajectories. Societal responses depend on an
adequate understanding of how our actions constrain our options in the future. Thus, ecological
forecasting requires identification of the mechanistic basis for how ecosystems resist change and
how internal feedbacks contribute to ecosystem resilience (MA 2003).
Here we propose a 10-year, continent-wide experimental network that will be coupled
to an observational network (experimental control) to detail the mechanisms by which
aquatic ecosystems resist and recover from three of the most pervasive forms of humaninduced disturbance. Our coupled experimental and observational networks will link
ecological change in streams to the processes responsible for change. We include a variety of
lotic waters (streams, wetlands, and rivers) but will refer to them as streams for the remainder of
this proposal. Streams occupy a small fraction of the landscape but are disproportionately
important for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and economic, recreational and aesthetic values
(Baron et al. 2002). Streams also integrate the effects of human activities on the landscape
linking watersheds to lakes and oceans; thus integrating environmental change across spatial
scales. Forms of human-induced disturbance we will focus on are (i) chronic nutrient
enrichment, (ii) altered frequencies of floods and droughts, and (iii) alteration of food-web
structure. Humans have roughly doubled the availability of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in
stream networks, leading to eutrophication of streams and downstream water bodies (Meybeck &
Helmer 1989, Kemp et al. 2005). As the climate changes over the next century, streams will
experience a greater frequency of floods and droughts due to an accelerated hydrologic cycle
(Poff et al. 2002). Furthermore, extinction rates of freshwater biota (particularly at top trophic
levels) exceed those for most marine or terrestrial fauna (Allan & Flecker 1993, Ricciardi &
Rasmusen 1999).
Streams are ideal ecosystems for the proposed research because they (i) have well
delimited inputs and outputs, allowing quantification of the resistance and resilience of the focal
ecosystem-level processes (Peterson et al. 2001), (ii) are dynamic systems that respond to
disturbances over periods of weeks to years - time scales amenable to observation and
experimentation (Poff et al. 1997), (iii) can be studied with comparable methods across the entire
continent, (iv) are important sites of nutrient retention (Alexander et al. 2000, Wollheim et al.
2006) and (v) integrate watershed processes that occur on the same scales as those investigated
by NEON network sensor platforms. Many of these attributes are unique to streams and allow
some types of cross continental research that are not feasible in other ecosystems.
II.1. Our overarching question: How will chronic nutrient inputs (nitrogen or phosphorus),
higher probabilities of extreme events (droughts and floods), and simplification of food webs
(loss of consumers) impact the resistance and resilience of stream ecosystem function (whole
ecosystem respiration, production, and nutrient retention)? We define resistance and resilience
as the proportional change in ecosystem functioning following a disturbance and the return
interval, respectively. Strong justification exists for linking our proposed ecosystem drivers
4
(independent variables). First, theoretical and empirical work has shown that community
structure and ecosystem function are jointly influenced by disturbances, and nutrient loading can
regulate rates of recovery (Wilson & Tilman 1993, Amarasekare et al. 2004, Cardinale et al.
2006). Similarly, nutrients and consumers often interact because top-down and bottom-up
controls have opposing impacts on community structure and function (Kneitel & Chase 2004,
Borer et al. 2006). Furthermore, biodiversity and ecosystem function are inherently linked
because resource capture and community production can depend on the number and types of
species as well as their resources (Tilman 1999, Chapin et al. 2000, Swan & Palmer 2006).
This prior research leads to at least two related predictions that have not been tested at the
continental scale or across major biomes as we propose. First, the biomass and dynamics of
aquatic basal species (autotrophs and microbial heterotrophs at the base of food webs) are
influenced by the relative impacts of two opposing forces: (i) hydrologic disturbance and
primary consumers that reduce biomass and mediate species coexistence, vs. (ii) nutrient loading
that promotes biomass production and favors basal species with high turnover and growth rates
(traits that favor resilience). Second, through their influence on basal species, (i) and (ii) modify
ecosystem functions, such as productivity, respiration, and nutrient retention. As such, they can
also alter the relative importance of the two dominant pathways of energy flux through a food
web – the producer vs. detrital pathways.
II.2. Hypotheses and expected results
H1 Interactions among key drivers: The resistance and resilience of ecosystem functioning
(stream productivity, respiration, nutrient cycling and retention) are jointly determined by the
frequency of extreme hydrologic events (droughts/floods), the rate of nutrient loading, and food
web structure. We expect both nutrient loading and pulsed hydrologic disturbances to decrease
nutrient retention. Primary and secondary production should increase with greater nutrient
loading as should rates of microbial decomposition, leading to more rapid recovery (resilience)
from pulsed disturbances compared to an undisturbed state. However, with greater flood and
drought frequency, primary and secondary production and consumer control on basal system
ecosystem functions will decrease. Interaction between loading and disturbance will thus amplify
ecosystem variability. Increasing the frequency of extreme events will promote dominance by a
subset of disturbance resistant taxa or resilient species with high growth and colonization rates.
Increased nutrients will make detrital food sources more available to consumers, shifting the
food web to a more heterotrophic state (Johnson et al. 2006).
H2 Time scales of ecosystem feedbacks and regime shifts: Long term nutrient loading and
increased frequency of hydrological disturbance interact to promote irreversible ‘regime’ shifts
that alter resistance and resilience of ecosystem functioning to droughts/floods (hydrologic
disturbance). Nutrient loading will shift algal community structure to favor taxa that are less
palatable to herbivores (mostly invertebrates and fish), while also increasing the quality of
detritus that is consumed primarily by fungi and bacteria (e.g., C:N detrital ratios decrease with
nutrient loading, Dodds et al. 2004). Loss of primary consumers may be further exacerbated by
increasing frequency of hydrologic disturbances that preclude the recovery of larger primary
consumers. As top-down control by herbivores is jointly reduced by nutrient loading and
hydrological disturbances, ecosystem-level processes will shift from producer to decomposer
pathways, the resistance of ecosystem functioning to hydrologic disturbance will decrease, and
the resilience increase (see H1). Regime shifts resulting from the extinction of consumers may
5
take years to occur, and long-term studies are required to detect more than just the transient
phases of ecosystem response.
H3 Spatial scales of response: The resilience and recovery of ecosystem functioning over large
(continental) scales will vary with regional context including local species composition and
diversity, climate and hydrological disturbance regime. Community structure and ecosystem
function vary with both local conditions, as well as across biogeographic scales. Thus, a
continental-scale observational and experimental network is needed to elucidate the context
dependency of ecological responses. Nutrient loading and flow disturbance vary greatly across
the gradient of sites we have selected, allowing us to test hypotheses that would be impossible to
test at single sites. We predict that sites with chronic nutrient loading (e.g., U.S. farm belt) are
closest to critical points for regime shifts in response to added loading. We also predict that sites
with historically variable flow regimes (Poff et al. 1997) will show little response to
experimental increases of hydrological disturbance frequency. Development of broadly
applicable predictive frameworks of ecological resilience can only be accomplished using
comparative studies at large scales as well as experimentation (Palmer and Bernhardt 2006)
because both ecological contexts and human impacts vary. For example, streams with closed
canopies have detritus-dominated food webs while open-canopy systems have prominent algal
producers supporting food webs. Evolutionary context also matters; herbivorous fish and
invertebrate grazers dominate in southern and northern streams respectively and are expected to
react differently when exposed to floods and drought.
II.3. Our hypotheses are directly related to both of NEON’s Grand Challenges. By assessing
the direction and pace by which stream ecosystems respond to and recover from human-induced
stressors (nutrient loading & altered hydrology), H1 squarely addresses Grand Challenge I. We
even go a step further to examine interactions among drivers that may limit ecosystem response.
H2 and H3 are directed at Grand Challenge II because our experiments manipulate the drivers of
ecosystem change in factorial combination with community structure (the consumers) that
influence ecosystem functioning. We will not only elucidate the effects of 3 main drivers but
also will compare the direct vs. indirect effects of each on ecosystem functioning. To clarify the
feedbacks between ecosystem function and community structure we have proposed to
experimentally sever feedbacks between community structure (consumers) and processes
performed by their resources (production and respiration) using consumer exclusions.
Importantly, our cross-domain approach will capture patterns of responses across most major
biomes in North America, as well as sites within biomes that differ in terms of historical context.
II.4. Why is NEON required for the proposed work? The interaction between altered flow
regimes and biotic communities under chronic nutrient pollution (Peterson et al. 1985) has
received little attention and has not been studied broadly across systems; yet understanding this
interaction is critical to identify management and restoration strategies for the nation’s aquatic
resources. A long-term and continental-scale experiment is necessary because effects such as
nutrient saturation and changes in species composition may take decades to manifest themselves
(Slavik et al. 2004) and historical and existing differences influencing ecological response
(context-dependency) typically occur over broad geographic regions. These differences include
many human impacts (e.g. atmospheric vs. terrestrial N loading), as well as gradients of
precipitation, temperature and hydrologic regimes that form the adaptive template freshwater
6
organisms have experienced over evolutionary time (Poff 1996). Our decade-long experiment in
combination with a simultaneous NEON observational program is designed to specifically
capture the pace and extent of human impacts on freshwater ecosystems. Finally, there are no
existing broad-scale funding mechanisms to approach these challenges at continental scales, or
even at more than a few sites at a time.
III. Experimental Design
III.1. Spatial design and overview
Our experiments will take place concurrently at 19 sites, a subset of 30 observational sites that
have been organized along continental gradients in nutrient loading, climate (e.g., arid to humid),
and hydrologic regimes (e.g., stable groundwater, intermittent flashy). While the inferences
about patterns from our observational network will be quite strong, our ability to distinguish the
processes underlying these patterns will be enhanced considerably by experiments that will
directly manipulate 3 of the most important drivers of ecological change (chronic nutrient
loading, frequency of extreme hydrologic events, and extinction of top consumers). Our
experimental network is also specifically designed to create vital infrastructure for future
experiments that could examine microbial biodiversity, cycling of minor elements,
stoichiometric analyses, effects of invasive species, efforts to scale to larger watersheds (e.g. by
linking to USGS sites or future CUAHSI or CZO sites), and other human stressors on
freshwaters. Ultimately, the conceptual framework for our experiments will help us evaluate how
and why streams respond to global change and, in turn, how these responses are tied to valuable
goods and services produced by these ecosystems (e.g., water purification, biodiversity,
production of exploitable species, nutrient cycling and retention).
Community structure
Flood and drying
(numbers and types of species)
(pulses driven by
climate and land use)
Value of ecosystem
goods and services
Ecosystem functions
Resource supply rate
(primary production
(press N & P addition)
and nutrient retention
and cycling)
We have proposed that our network of experimental sites be coupled with a continental
observational network because the complex interactions and potential feedbacks we will identify
require long-term data collected via complementary approaches. While we have identified
potential primary drivers of stream and wetland ecosystem function in our hypotheses, context
dependence is expected to play an important role in mediating stream ecosystem response, and
thus it is necessary to array sites across a variety of gradients to ensure that alternative
explanations for ecosystem and community properties are not discounted. Therefore, we have
arrayed our sites along biogeographical gradients that span our focal independent variables,
atmospheric deposition of nitrogen (high rates in the northeast and lower in many areas of the
rest of country), and hydrologic regime (intermittent flashy in the southwestern desert US,
snowmelt in many western states, etc.). Our sites also span other gradients that might influence
context-dependent responses, such as gradients of precipitation and temperature (north-south,
east-west transects), elevation (sea level to 3200 m), and evolutionary history (species-poor areas
in northern glaciated areas, species-rich areas in the southern and eastern US).
7
Our observational and experimental stream sites were chosen to span all the NEON
domains and to include two or more sites within several NEON domains, so that for these
domains we could view some drivers as ‘constant’ while others vary. For example, parts of the
Northern Plains and Great Basin domains have similar hydrologic regimes but differ with respect
to elevation and snowpack; sites within the Prairie Peninsula domain have similar annual
temperatures but differ in terms of N deposition; and sites within the Pacific Northwest and the
Atlantic Tropical Domains have similar precipitation but differ in temperature. This design will
allow us to elucidate the context-dependence of our results and thus contribute to the
development of general predictive frameworks for ecological response and ecosystem resilience.
We have also ensured that some of our domains include considerable variation in human
impact (urban, cropland, hydrologic modification). These sites were chosen to be in areas of
rapid ecological change (urban sites such as Phoenix, Midwest sites in regions of rapid
groundwater withdrawal, and agricultural sites in the Central US). Core wild land sites will be
interspersed with human impacted sites to assess more localized gradients of human impacts.
Detail on the array of sites is included in the site selection section below, and substantially
greater detail is contained in the companion response describing our observational network.
III.2,3,4. Replicates, site characteristics, experimental protocol and measurements
Manipulation of independent variables (controls and treatments)
This experiment will entail continuously fertilizing streams for 10 years, doubling background
concentrations of the limiting nutrient(s) and comparing impacts to an unfertilized reference
reach (observational site). Limiting nutrients for microbial heterotrophic and autotrophic growth
will be established by initial nutrient enrichment bioassays (Tank & Dodds 2003). We have
identified two study systems at each experimental site (one for the observation of reference
conditions and one for nutrient enrichment), each with at least 300 meters of stream channel and
in secure locations. Each site will effectively serve as one replicate in the continental-scale
experiment (i.e. across NEON domains). Experimental locations have been chosen where
moderate amounts of fertilization or hydrologic manipulations are allowed, and where streams
are reflective of “typical” regional geomorphology and vegetation.
Nested within each nutrient treatment (reference vs. 2x nutrient addition), we will
manipulate the presence/absence of top consumers from the benthic habitat in smaller plots by
utilizing cage or electrical fence exclosures. Each exclosure will be paired with an “open side”
or non-electrified control such that top-down effects can be calculated as the difference. These
manipulations are meant to simulate extinction of top-consumers in a food web, which are
generally most vulnerable to human impact. Because sites will have inherently different food
webs, it is important to note that the top consumer at individual sites may represent different
trophic groups (e.g. the top consumer is some streams is carnivorous fish, while in others it may
be invertebrate herbivores). The important point is not that all sites will be manipulating the
exact same group of organisms; rather, that all sites will be removing the top consumer in that
systems, and this will, in turn, alter the magnitude of top-down control over ecological processes
(either increasing or decreasing it). This flexibility allows many different sites that are
inherently different to participate in the study, while still ensuring that we have a common
framework that allows us to test our hypotheses
Hydrologic manipulations at a subset of our experimental sites will be performed by
using sudden water releases from stored tanks or tanker trucks. We will pump water into the
tanks over a period of time and then release the water rapidly into the stream to simulate
8
scouring floods that cause bed movement. For hydrologic manipulation of intermittence we will
focus on increasing frequency and magnitude of drying events in sites where it is possible to
control diversion of flows from the site. As with flood treatments in streams, these drought
manipulations will allow us to assess responses to predicted increases in the frequency and
magnitude of drought. These experiments will assess the potential response of more stable
groundwater systems to the predicted increased probability of flooding inherent in a more
energetic climate under global warming.
III.5. Measurement of response variables
Key ecosystem-level processes will be measured at the inflow and outflow of each
experimental reach. This two-station approach is required to account for transport of materials
and to assess the importance of in-stream processing (Bernhardt et al. 2005, Darracq & Destouni
2005, Wollheim et al. 2006). Ecosystem functions to be measured include ecosystem metabolism
(productivity and respiration), secondary productivity, nutrient retention and cycling (uptake,
denitrification), and decomposition rates (Table 1, see Table 2 for methods). To help us interpret
changes in the resistance and resilience of ecosystem functions, we will also measure a number
Table 1. Independent and Dependent Variables to be Assessed
Independent Variables
Obsevational network (existing gradient)
Climate – temperature, precipitation (mean,
variation)
Nutrient deposition
Extreme events (magnitude, frequency)
#
sites
30
30
30
Dependent Variables (level and
resilience*) for both observational and
experimental networks
Nutrient retention (N,P)
Decomposition
#
sites
Denitrification
Respiratory Metabolism and Ecosystem
Production
Secondary Production (inverts, fish)
30
30
30
30
Ecological context (e.g., geomorphology,
30
30
biogeography, temperature, elevation)
Native and non-native species diversity
30
Experimental network (direct manipulations)
Nutrient additions
19
Food web structure (stable isotope studies)
30
Consumer exclusions
19
Extreme events (magnitude)
10
*each dependent variable will be evaluated in terms of magnitude (e.g., rate of denitrification or primary
production, number of native species) and resilience following flow disturbances (e.g., rate and magnitude of
recovery following flow disturbances).
of response variables that describe food-web structure, including species composition and
diversity of algae (and macrophytes where present), macroinvertebrates, and vertebrates, as well
as food web structure (e.g., degree of omnivory, reliance on detritus versus primary producers,
length of food chain) (Table 1). We will use standard core biodiversity measurements as
outlined in the ISEP, with more intensive sampling where necessary as noted below (Table 2).
More frequent measurements will be required to assess resilience to flood and drought, and to
estimate secondary production of aquatic invertebrates. Contemporary methods (e.g., stable
isotopes) will be used to trace food webs and ecosystem process rates. Food web structure will
be established with gut analyses and by natural abundance of stable isotopes (C, N, and
sometimes S and O).
Facilities and equipment
To account for in stream ecosystem processes, each observational site will require
two sets of measurements, including two aquatic sensor arrays, and each experimental site
9
will have two study reaches (one reference equivalent to the other observational sites and
one with manipulations, each with two sets of measurements (four aquatic sensor arrays) (a
total of 60 + 38 sensor packages and 30 aquatic biodiversity units). Two sensors packages
are required to characterize in-stream ecosystem rates.
We need additional samples that cannot be measured with the standard sensor packages
to be analyzed at central facilities for biodiversity and chemical assessment. Dissolved gas
measurements are required for calculation of denitrification rates (dissolved N2) as well as
production rates of greenhouse gases (N2O, methane, CO2). Total nutrient concentrations are
needed to estimate ecosystem transport, retention, and nutrient cycling. Natural abundance of
stable isotopes in chemical fractions is required to establish differences in biogeochemical
cycling pathways. Stable isotope abundance will be particularly important in the enrichment
sites using nitrogen because the fertilizer will have a distinct isotopic signature and thus will
serve as an isotope tracer addition. Stable isotope abundance in organisms and food sources will
also allow quantification of food web structure (e.g. path strengths in food webs, not just
linkages) and movement of nutrients into and through biota under different experimental and
observational conditions.
We propose to use central facilities for all analyses of water chemistry, isotope analyses,
and identifications of macroinvertebrate and algal species. Jan Stevenson at Michigan State
University is willing to oversee algal taxonomy, Matt Whiles at Southern Illinois University
Carbondale will oversee macroinvertebrate taxonomy and analyses, and Walter Dodds at Kansas
State University will oversee water chemistry and isotope analyses.
Relationship to observational network
The observational and the experimental networks are complementary in their effort. The
observational network will allow us to assess whether our hypotheses are supported by
correlative long-term patterns documented in sites across the continent. On the other hand, our
experiments allow us to verify whether those hypotheses are, in fact, the true explanation of data
(not just a correlative relationship) in more than half of the observational sites. While either of
the initiatives (experimental or observational) would yield important information on their own,
both initiatives are designed to complement each other and provide maximum information for
less cost and effort. Linkage of experimental and observational efforts across the continent is
almost unprecedented in ecological research. Some observational efforts have been targeted to
larger streams or lakes (e.g., EMAP or the USGS stream gauging network), but none toward the
small, shallow aquatic habitats that form the key interface between terrestrial and other aquatic
habitats.
10
Table 2. Measurements specified in the Integrated Science and Education Plan that will be performed concurrently across all
sites.
Spatial Distribution
Measurement
Water level in reach and nearby groundwater
Bottom of each reach
Dissolved organic carbon concentration
Sampling
Frequency
Direct or Aggregate
Aggregate mean daily plus minimum and maximum
Top and bottom of each reach
Every 10
minutes
Daily
Nutrient concentrations bys sensor: NO3stream
Riparian groundwater levels
Top and bottom of each reach
Daily
Aggregate mean daily plus minimum and maximum
In groundwater wells
Weekly
Conductivity
Top and bottom of each reach
Hourly
Aggregate to mean monthly plus minimum and
maximum
Aggregate mean daily plus minimum and maximum
Turbidity
Top and bottom of each reach
Hourly
Aggregate mean daily plus minimum and maximum
Chlorophyll
Top and bottom of each reach
Hourly
Aggregate mean daily plus minimum and maximum
Surface PAR and UV
Middle of each reach
Hourly
Aggregate mean daily plus minimum and maximum
Automated water sample collection for
additional chemical profiles (dissolved and
particulate N, P and C)
Dissolved oxygen
Top and bottom of each reach
Hourly
Aggregate flow weighted daily
Top and bottom of each reach
Hourly
Aggregate mean daily plus minimum and maximum
Temperature
Top and bottom of each reach
Hourly
Aggregate mean daily plus minimum and maximum
pH
Top and bottom of each reach
Hourly
Aggregate mean daily plus minimum and maximum
Direct
11
Table 3. Additional measurements using manual methods.
Measurement
Type
Post-Processing
Skill
Level
Spatial
Distribution
Sampling Frequency
Direct or
Aggregate
Stream geomorphology
Isotope natural abundance in
water
Isotope natural abundance in
biomass compartments
Biomass of compartments
In situ
Grab
Data entry
Extensive chemical
All of site
1 sample
Once after every major flood
From daily combined water sample
Direct
Aggregate
Grab
Dry, grind, weight
Field tech
BS
chemistry
Lab tech
Seasonal (every 4 months)
Direct
Grab
Dry, grind, weight
Lab tech
Seasonal (every 4 months)
Direct
Dissolved and particulate N, P
and C
Benthic chlorophyll
Grab
Digest, autoanalzye
From daily combined water sample
Aggregate
Grab
Collect and extract
BS
chemistry
Lab tech
Grab
Trace gas flux (diffusive
evasion of CO2, CH4, N2O)
Grab
Field tech
Combined across
reach
Monthly plus every 3 days after a
disturbance
Direct
N2 flux (15N tracer studies)
Grab
Field tech
Combined across
reach
Monthly plus every 3 days after a
disturbance
Direct
Nutrient limitation bioassays
In situ
incubation
Field tech/
lab tech
1 set each reach
Once per site per season
Direct
Leaf decomposition rate
Field tech
Triplicate each reach
Combined across
reach
Macroinvertebrates
Grab
Lab ID
Combined across
reach
Seasonal (every 4 months), and more
frequently for secondary production
Direct
Fish
Grab
Field ID and release
Field tech/
systematic
expert
Field tech/
systematic
expert
Field tech
Every fall using on replicate riparian
leaves and “standard” leaves
Seasonal (every 4 months), and more
frequently after disturbance
Direct
Algae
In situ
incubation
Grab
Extract gas from water, send
to central lab to analyze gas
on GC
Extract gas from water, send
to central lab to analyze gas
on GC
Extract gas from water, send
to central lab to analyze gas
on MIMS
Measure metabolic rates of
substrata, analyze for
chlorophyll
Incubate leaf packs, weigh
before and after
Lab ID
Monthly plus every 3 days after a
disturbance
Over a range of discharges for each
site, redone after major floods
Direct
Reaeration rates using SF6
tracer gas release
Combined across
reach
Combined across
reach
Combined across
reach
Combined across
reach
Combined across
reach
Combined across
reach
Seasonal (every 4 months), and more
frequently after disturbance
Direct
Field tech
Aggregate
Direct
12
III.6. Remote sensing needs
Streams and wetlands are the vital interface between terrestrial and aquatic habitat which
is sensitive to land use, disturbance and climate change. Trends in land use/ land cover in the
watershed above each observational point will be a key explanatory variable of ecological
conditions, as will more detailed information on riparian vegetation characteristics. Remote
sensing can serve two different purposes relative to our stream experiments. First, results at
experimental and observational sites will be influenced by changes in watershed land use and
cover. We propose to use Landsat NLCD data to characterize catchment cover for each
experimental stream site.
Additionally, we posit that riparian vegetation can dictate light availability for aquatic
primary production, provides a key energy source to stream food webs, and will respond to longterm fertilization experiments. Vegetation greenness, LAI, above-ground biomass, and canopy
density are variables of interest that could be sensed remotely. We therefore request a subset of
the remote sensing coverage associated with the “Continental Prime Package” outlined in the
document “Remote Sensing and Spatial Data Acquisition for the NEON Network and Integrated
Thematic Gradient Studies” (Ustin et al. 2006). Our specific request appears in the Table below.
These data are requested for permanent transects oriented along and upstream of the
experimental stream reaches. In many cases the watershed remote sensing will also serve for
other NEON purposes.
Table 4.
Sensor
Type
Resolution
Spectral
Spatial
Temporal
Spatial
Extent
Landsat5 or
alternative
400-2500nm
5 Bands
30m
1/year
Drainage
Basin
Hyperspectral
Imager
400-3000nm
2m
2
times/growing
season
1km
0.5m
1/year (peak
growth)
1km
No. Bands:
200-350
Full Waveform
Lidar (flown
with VNIR
imager or
camera)
NIR, 1 band
Image
Processing
Level
Most
Important
Variable/Meas.
OrthoGeoregistered
Radiance
Standard products
OrthoGeoregistered
Radiance
Surface
Reflectance
Standard products
NLCD Land Cover
OrthoGeoregistered
Calibrated
Elevation
3-d data cubes
Biomass
LAI
Tree density
3-d land cover
(topography of
ground and canopy)
Aboveground
biomass
Tree density
Leaf area density
Species maps
% cover, LAI , fPAR
Land cover classes
Species/community
maps
BGC states
(pigments, water
content, dry plant
matter; soil minerals,
clay, organic matter)
13
III.7. Expected duration of the experiment
We will carry out the experiments for several decades using funding from NEON to support at
least the first 10 years. Prior long-term fertilizations in streams have yielded unpredicted
responses on longer time scales (Chambers & Prepas 1994, Peterson et al. 1985, Slavik et al.
2004). Such effects may be particularly notable where larger animals or long-lived primary
producers play important roles. For example, stimulation of heterotrophic activity by nutrients in
a forested headwater stream ultimately led to increased growth rates of a dominant large
consumer (larval salamander, Johnson et al. 2006). Short-term nutrient additions (acute) lead to
different responses in nutrient retention than long-term, chronic, additions (O’Brien 2006).
Finally, long term changes in flood or drought frequency are expected to have very different
impacts from those found from the many short term experiments conducted by stream ecologists
(Fisher & Grimm 1991, Palmer et al. 1996).
III.8. Administration and review plan
We will model our administrative and experimental planning after the cross-site LINX I
and LINX II projects, which represent a highly successful long-term collaboration among a large
group of stream ecologists. The original LINX I project ran from September 1996 through
August 2001 and resulted in 26 publications, 7 theses and dissertations, and 69 presentations.
The LINX II project started in 2001 and has generated 14 peer reviewed publications as of 2005.
Thirteen synthetic manuscripts are now being prepared. Our group will include prior LINX
participants, but also expand to include other sites and investigators.
In the first year we will have three, two-day workshops to finalize protocols and plans,
start pre-sampling, and establish publication policies. We will meet annually to review progress
of the experiment to assess the possibility of unexpected interactions resulting from the
treatments. This will allow for interpretation of results, assessing the possibilities for unforeseen
movements of experimental or observational sites, and revision of protocols. We think a flexible
approach is necessary considering that replicates occur across the continent.
We will establish an executive committee to make decisions on hiring, and more
importantly on the planning of auxiliary experiments that occur at our sites. This long-term
experiment will provide very strong infrastructure and we anticipate numerous requests to
perform experiments and complementary studies using the extensive background data and
manipulations.
We will hire a doctoral-level scientific project coordinator to deal with day-to-day
decisions on scientific direction. The executive committee will oversee the project coordinator.
We will also require laboratory personnel for core analytical facilities, water chemistry, isotope
analyses, algal taxonomy and macroinvertebrate taxonomy.
14
IV. Site Recommendations and information . (see attached ESRI shapfile in Arc/Info E00
export format)
Figure 1. Proposed sites for the Stream Experimental and Observational Network
(STREON). These sites will serve as the foundation for a comprehensive, 10-year study of the
resistance and resilience of aquatic ecosystems to global change (also see Table 5).
Table 5. Names and information about STREON core sites- Experimental sites in italics in
shaded rows.
Name of location
Property owner
Latitude
Longitude
Primary property
access point
Andrews Experimental Forest
Arctic
US Forest Service
BLM Research Natural
Area
University of Alaska
City of Boulder, CO
Nature Conservancy
USFS
State of Wisconsin
US Department of Energy
44.207340
68.633333
-122.256965
-148.283333
Road
Road
65.160000
40.042875
39.103807
18.316330
46.012000
35.573168
-147.500000
-105.592296
-96.595539
-65.748020
-89.672000
-84.164504
Road, ATV trails
Road
Road
Road
Dirt road
Road
BLM
US Forest Service
34.3358
32.953200
-107.0392
-87.409000
Road
Road
Caribou Poker Creek
Green Lakes Valley
Konza/ Kings Creek
Luquillo/ Bisley
Northern Lake District
Oak Ridge Reservation / Walker
Branch
Rio Salado
Talladega Forest
15
Noncore site candidate gradient sites- Experimental sites in italics in shaded rows.
Name of location
Property owner
California Sierra Nevada
Los Angeles Dept of Water
& Power,
Nature Conservancy
UDSA Forest Service
American Chestnut Land
Trust
USGS
NPS, Department of Interior
Commonwealth of
Kentucky/TVA
Sam Houston State
University
numerous private and
municipal
Michigan State University
National Tropical Botanical
Garden
Cole Spring Branch
Coweeta
Eastern coastal plain
Entrada Field Station
Everglades
Hancock Biological
Station/Ledbetter Creek
Harmon Creek
Indian Bend Wash
Kellogg/ Augusta Creek
Limahuli Stream, Kauai,
Hawaii
Middle Mississippi River
Wetlands Field Station
Plum Island
Red Butte Creek in Red
Butte Canyon RNA
Saline River
San Pedro River
Sycamore Creek
University of Oklahoma
Biological Station
Upper Snake River
Williston Research
Extension Center
Illinois Department of
Natural Resources
(managed by SIUC)
Town of Ipswich
Conservation
US Forest Service
Fort Hays State University
Grayhawk Nature Center
Tonto National Forest
Army Corps of Engineers
and University of Oklahoma
Commonwealth of
Kentucky/TVA
North Dakota State
University
Lat.
Long.
Primary property
access point
37.611900
-118.872700
Road
34.677423
35.058633
38.525000
-86.323447
-83.445144
-76.525833
38.800000
25.468206
36.739484
-109.270000
-80.853276
-88.154249
30.744800
-95.471500
Road
33.631261
-111.890227
Road
42.366200
22.21993049
-85.356300
-159.5765763
Road
Road
37.266666
-89.450000
Road
42.722128
-70.847136
Boat
40.800000
-111.780000
Road
39.070000
31.625833
33.694100
33.982240
-99.115000
-110.173889
-111.541000
-96.432000
Road
Road
Road
Road/trails/boat
43.658300
-110.711300
Road/boat
48.160000
-103.630000
Road
Road
Road
Road/trails
Road
Road/boat/helicopter
Road
16
V. Budget Estimates
This budget indicates additional costs that would be required over and above the observational
network (see related response to RFI) costs. We require 60 aquatic sensor units from the ISEP
standard aquatic sensor package for observational sites and an additional 38 aquatic sensor units
to instrument experimental sites. We need the equivalent of 30 aquatic biodiversity sentinel units
(the costs of biodiversity sample processing are included in this budget). These estimates are for
first year costs; replacement of these units or their components will be necessary over the 10-yr
lifespan of the project. We have not estimated fringe benefit rates for any salaries, nor have we
estimated overhead rates. We suggest that salaries and operating costs should increase by 5%
per year. We attach standard NSF forms for the first year including building and operation costs,
and for the 2nd year that includes only operation costs.
V.1. One time costs, overhead not included
Cost Ea.
Item
OI flowsolution IV nutrient
autoanalyzer
IC with nutrient regenerator
Millipore SuperQ water
purification system
Shimadzu TOV-V
combustion analyzer
SpeX Certiprep 8000 mill
Cahn C-35 microbalance
Metler Toledo analytical
balance
Metler Toledo pan balance
Thelco precision drying
oven
Thermolyne muffle furnace
Thermo electron IRMS
Delta V
MS-200 membrane inlet
mass spectrometer
Varian CP3800 gas
chromatograph
Compound microscope/
image analysis system
Dissecting scope/ image
analysis
Dissecting scopes
M11 Ultraclave steam
sterilizer
Use
Analyze dissolved
nutrients
Analyze nitrate and
phosphate
Provide water for
nutrient lab
Analyze dissolved
carbon
Mill solid samples for
isotope analysis
Weigh solid samples
Reagent preparation
Weigh fertilizer, field
samples for biomass
Process biomass
samples
Dissolved carbon
sampling gear/ ash free
dry mass
Mass spec natural
abundance of dissolved
and particulate
materials
Analyze dissolved N2
concentration
Analyze dissolved
gasses
Algal identification
Macroinvertebrate
identification
Macroinvertebrate
picking
Digestion
Cost
# Exp
$70,000
#
Obs
1
Observ
Experi
$70,000
$0
$45,000
1
$45,000
$0
$13,000
1
$13,000
$0
$40,000
1
0
$40,000
$0
$6,000
1
0
$6,000
$0
$16,000
$3,500
1
1
0
0
$16,000
$3,500
$0
$0
$2,500
30
0
$72,500
$0
$2,718
30
0
$78,822
$0
$4,000
30
0
$116,000
$0
$2,000,000
1
0
$2,000,000
$0
$75,000
1
0
$75,000
$0
$70,000
1
1
$70,000
$70,000
$25,000
1
1
$25,000
$25,000
$15,000
1
1
$15,000
$15,000
$1,500
5
5
$7,500
$7,500
$4,000
1
0
$4,000
$0
17
Turner fluorometer
aquaflour
Pipettes
Nutrient release equipment
Computers
Site preperation
Power (solar or extensions)
Enclosure materials
Sampling gear
Innova 2350 shaker table
Chlorophyll, rhodamine
$2,500
30
19
$72,500
$42,500
Calibration standard
preparation
Add nutrients at
controlled rate
Data storage/ download
Site and secure
equipment
Variable across sites,
averaged here
Consumer exclusions
Nets, seines, corers
Dissolved nitrogen
isotope chemistry
$1,000
30
19
$29,000
$20,000
30
19
$580,000
$340,000
$2,500
$5,000
30
30
19
19
$72,500
$145,000
$17,000
$85,000
$5,000
30
19
$145,000
$85,000
$2,000
$1,000
$7,000
30
30
30
19
0
0
$58,000
$29,000
$203,000
$34,000
$0
$0
$3,991,322
$721,000
V.2. Annual costs, upkeep, materials and supplies overhead (not included)
Individual sites
Materials, supplies,
shipping, upkeep, probe
replacement
Individual sites
Travel (to site, to
annual meetings)
Materials, supplies,
upkeep
Materials, supplies,
upkeep
Materials, supplies,
upkeep
Materials, supplies,
upkeep
Algal identification facility
Macroinvertebrate facility
Water chemistry facility
Isotope analysis facility
$15,000
30
19
$450,000
$285,000
$2,000
30
0
$60,000
$0
$4,000
1
1
$4,000
$4,000
$3,000
1
1
$3,000
$3,000
$5,000
1
1
$5,000
$5,000
$7,000
1
1
$7,000
$7,000
$529,000
$304,000
Total
Annual personnel needs: note fringe rates not included
Project director
Data managers
Education coordinator
Individual sites
Individual sites
Algal identification facility
Algal identification facility
Macroinvertebrate facility
Macroinvertebrate facility
Water chemistry facility
Water chemistry facility
Isotope analysis facility
Isotope analysis facility
Full time, doctoral level
scientist
Full time data managers
Full time
Field tech half time
Lab tech half time
Taxonomist
Lab tech
Taxonomist
Lab tech
Analyst
Lab tech
Analyst
Lab tech
$70,000
1
0
$70,000
$0
$50,000
$40,000
$15,000
$15,000
$40,000
$30,000
$40,000
$30,000
$40,000
$30,000
$50,000
$30,000
1
1
30
30
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
19
19
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$50,000
$40,000
$450,000
$450,000
$40,000
$30,000
$40,000
$30,000
$40,000
$30,000
$50,000
$30,000
$1,350,000
$50,000
$0
$285,000
$285,000
$40,000
$30,000
$40,000
$30,000
$40,000
$30,000
$50,000
$30,000
$910,000
18
VI. Other considerations
Future research directions - Our experiments are specifically designed to encourage
participation by, and interaction among, the broadest possible group of scientists. Aside from the
projects we have proposed here, our goal is to establish a long-term set of experiments with a
flexible infrastructure that facilitates the future addition of experiments. Indeed, we are already
discussing collaborations with colleagues, and are preparing to seek additional funds for studies
that will consider the functional importance of stream microbial biodiversity, the impacts of
community structure on the cycling of minor elements, stoichiometric analyses, feedbacks
between drivers of ecosystem changes and probabilities of species invasions, and theoretical
efforts to scale our results to whole watersheds (e.g. by linking to USGS sites or future CUAHSI
sites).
Interactions with other NEON proposals – This RFI is closely related to the STREON stream
observational proposal. Also, we have developed these responses to the RFI in conjunction with
Consortium for Connectivity at Continental Scales. Most of our sites match the location of
their core or gradient sites. We are addressing key issues of connectivity at continental scales,
explicitly how terrestrial systems connect to aquatic ecosystem as streams are one of the
dominant routes of material transport on all but the most xeric landscapes. The stream sites are
considering watersheds that integrate the footprints of the proposed terrestrial sensor units.
We note that a separate response to the RFI proposes a continental-scale network of instrumented
lakes and reservoirs (GLEON). Like streams, lakes and reservoirs are sensitive to changes in
climate, landuse, and biotic structure. They function as sentinels and integrators of
environmental change in their airsheds and landscapes downstream. We view our proposed
network as complimentary to the lake network, yet able to examine a different set of questions.
Some of the central laboratory analytical facilities would be similar across the networks, and
should both networks be supported we would expect to combine facilities wherever possible to
make resource use rates the most efficient.
References
Alexander, R. B., R. A. Smith and G. E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of stream channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to
the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758-761.
Allan, J. D. and A. S. Flecker. 1993. Biodiversity conservation in running waters. BioScience 43:32-43.
Amarasekare, P, M. F. Hoopes, N. Mouquet and M. Holyoak. 2004. Mechanisms of coexistence in competitive
metacommunities. American Naturalist 164:310-326.
Baron, J. S., et al. 2002. Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater. Ecological Applications 12:12471260.
Bernhardt, E. S., et al. 2005. Can't see the forest for the stream? In-stream processing and terrestrial nitrogen
exports. BioScience 55:219-230.
Borer, E. T., B. S. Halpern, and E. W. Seabloom. 2006. Asymmetry in community regulation: Effects of predators
and productivity. Ecology 87:2813-2820.
Cardinale, B. J., H. Hillebrand, and D. F. Charles. 2006. Geographic patterns of diversity in streams are predicted by
a multivariate model of disturbance and productivity. Journal of Ecology 94:609-618.
Chambers, P. A. and E. E. Prepas. 1994. Nutrient dynamics in riverbeds: the impact of sewage effluent and aquatic
macrophytes. Water Research. 28:453-464.
Chapin, F. S. I., E. S. Zavaleta, V. T. Eviners, R. L. Naylor, P. M. Vitousek, H. L. Reynolds, D. U. Hooper, S.
Lavorel, O. E. Sala, S. E. Hobbie, M. C. Mack, and S. Diaz. 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity.
Nature 405:234-242.
19
Darracq, A. and G. Destouni 2005. In-stream nitrogen attenuation: model aggregation effects and implications for
coastal nitrogen impacts. Environmental Science and Technology 39:3716-3722.
Dodds, W. K., E. Martí, J. L. Tank, J. Pontius, S. K. Hamilton, N. B. Grimm, W. B. Bowden, W. H. McDowell, B.
J. Peterson, H. M. Valett, J. R. Webster, and S. Gregory. 2004. Carbon and nitrogen stoichiometry and
nitrogen cycling rates in streams. Oecologia 140:458-467.
Fisher, S.G. and N.B. Grimm. 1991. Streams and disturbance: are cross-ecosystem comparisons useful? In: Cole, J.,
Lovett G. and S. Findlay (eds) pp 196-222. Comparative Analyses of Ecosystems. Springer, Berlin.
Johnson, B.R., J. B. Wallace, A. D. Rosemond and W.F. Cross. 2006. Larval salamander growth responds to
enrichment of a nutrient poor headwater stream. Hydrobiologia DOI 10.1007/s10750-006-0272-3.
Kemp, W. M., W. R. Boynton and 16 others. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and
ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303:1-20.
Kneitel, J. M. and J. M. Chase. 2004. Disturbance, predator, and resource interactions alter container community
composition. Ecology 85:2088-2093.
MA. 2003. Millennium Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: An Assessment Framework.
http://maweb.org/en/index.aspx.
MEA. 2005. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity synthesis.
World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.
Meybeck, M. and R. Helmer 1989. The quality of rivers: from pristine stage to global pollution, p. 283-309.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. Elsevier Science Publishers, B. V.
O’Brien, J. M. 2006. Controls of nitrogen spiraling in Kansas streams. PhD dissertation, Kansas State University.
Palmer, M.A. and E. S. Bernhardt. 2006. Hydroecology and river restoration: ripe for research and synthesis. Water
Resources Research . 42, W03S07, 10.1029/2005WR004354.
Palmer, M. A., P. Arensburger, A. P. Martin and D. W. Denman. 1996. Disturbance and patch-specific responses:
the interactive effects of woody debris and floods on lotic invertebrates. Oecologia 105:247-257.
Peterson, B. J., J. E. Hobbie, A. E. Hershey, M. A. Lock, T. E. Ford, J. R. Vestal, V. L. McKinley, M. A. J. Hullar,
M. C. Miller, R. M. Ventullo and G. S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to
autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1385.
Peterson, B. J., W. F. Wollheim, P. J. Mulholland, J. R. Webster, J. L. Meyer, J. L. Tank, E. Martí, W. B. Bowden,
H. M. Valett, A. E. Hershey, W. H. McDowell, W. K. Dodds, S. K. Hamilton, S. Gregory, and D. D.
Morrall 2001. Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292:86-90.
Poff, N. L. 1996. A hydrogeography of unregulated streams in the United States and an examination of scaledependence in some hydrological descriptors. Freshwater Biol. 36:71-91.
Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks and J. C. Strolmberg.
1997. The natural flow regime. A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:769-784.
Poff, L., M. M. Brinson, and J. W. Day Jr. 2002. Aquatic Ecosystems and global climate change. Potential impacts
on inland freshwater and coastal wetland ecosystems in the United States. Prepared for the Pew Center on
Global Climate Change 44 pp.
Postel, S. L., G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1996. Human appropriation of renewable fresh water. Science 271:785788.
Ricciardi, A. And J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conservation
Biology 13:1220–1222.
Sala, O. E., F. S. Chapin, J. J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L. F. Huenneke, R.
B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D. M. Lodge, H. A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N. L. Poff, M. T. Sykes,
B. H. Walker, M. Walker, and D. H. Wall. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science
287:1770-1774.
Slavik, K., B. J. Peterson, L. A. Deegan, W. B. Bowden, A. E. Hershey, and J. E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term
responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85:939-954.
Swan, C. M. and M. A. Palmer. 2006. Preferential feeding by an aquatic consumer mediates non-additive
decomposition of speciose leaf litter. Oecologia 149:online first.
Tank, J.L. and W. K. Dodds 2003. Nutrient limitation of epilithic and epixylic biofilms in 10 North American
streams. Freshwater Biology 48:1031-1049.
Tilman, D. 1999. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology
80:1455-1474.
Wilson, S. D. and D. Tilman. 1993. Plant competition and resource availability in response to disturbance and
fertilization. Ecology 74:599-611.
20
Wollheim, W. M., C. J. Vörömarty, B. J. Peterson, S. P. Seitzinger, and C. S. Hopkinson. 2006. Relationship
between river size and nutrient removal. Geophysical Research Letters 33:L06140-06144.
Zachos, J., M. Pagani, L. Sloan, E. Thomas, and K. Billups. 2001. Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global
climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292:686-693.
21
FOR NSF USE ONLY
54
Year 1 Build out Costs SUMMARY BUDGET
PROPOSAL NO.
ORGANIZATIONSTREON Stream Experimental and Observational Network
DURATION (MONTHS)
Proposed
Granted
AWARD NO.
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR Walter Dodds
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
NSF-Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
Funds
Funds
Requested By
Granted by NSF
Proposer
1. Project coordinator
12
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. (
) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
7. (
) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (
) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
2. (68) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
12
3. (
) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (
) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (
) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (
) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS) assume 35%
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
70000
(If Different)
$
2190000
2260000
791000
3051000
Detail in response, does not include sensor packages or biodiversity sampling
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$
2. TRAVEL
3. SUBSISTENCE
4. OTHER
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (
)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
3608000
60000
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
1877332
6. OTHER
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I.
8596322
INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) unknown?
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
$
$
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
DATE
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
NSF Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
FOR NSF USE ONLY
54
Continuing costs SUMMARY PROPOSAL
BUDGET
ORGANIZATION
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
STREON Stream Experimental and Observational Network
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
Walter Dodds
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
NSF-Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
Funds
Funds
Requested By
Granted by NSF
Proposer
1. Project coordinator
12
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. (
) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
7. (
) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (
) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
2. ( 68 ) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
12
3. (
) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (
) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (
) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (
) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
70000
(If Different)
$
2190000
2260000
791000
3051000
Detail in response, does not include sensor packages or biodiversity sampling
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
60000
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
2. TRAVEL
3. SUBSISTENCE
4. OTHER
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (
)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
773000
6. OTHER
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I.
3884000
INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
$
$
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
DATE
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
NSF Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG