What are Earth’s Species and Dynamics?
March 20, 2015
Committee Members: Katherina Bendz Searing, Stephen A. Garney, James P. Gibbs, Thomas R. Horton,
Donald J. Leopold, Ralph D. Nyland, Andrea M. Parker, Jamie Vanucchi, Alex Weir
Background Statement – The biosphere is comprised of an estimated 10-12 million species, of which
fewer than 2 million are known, and complex ecosystems shaped by a combination of biotic and abiotic
factors. Among species and their adaptations discoverable through natural history are evidence of the
evolutionary past and biomimetic models for a sustainable future. In spite of great progress in ecology,
systematics, evolutionary biology, and related fields, what we do not know about species, adaptations,
and dynamics of the biosphere far exceeds what we have learned. Recent advances in species detection
are revealing a profound diversity of organisms hitherto unseen and allows us to investigate their activity
under natural conditions. Species extinction, habitat diminishment and degradation, and climate change
make exploration of the biosphere urgent. What are the greatest contributions we can make to exploring
and understanding the biosphere and its elements (species, ecosystems, etc.) and dynamics?
Charge to Committees on Transdisciplinary Questions – Propose subquestions that ESF should
consider adopting over the next five years. The subquestions should require the participation of multiple
disciplines. At least one should build on existing ESF strengths to accelerate advances. And each should
have great potential impact on science, society, or both.
**********
Subquestion #1: How could ESF position itself as “go-to” institution for biodiversity discovery,
informatics, outreach and training? (James P. Gibbs and Alex Weir, lead)
1. Rationale, justification, significance
What kinds of organisms exist in the natural world? How are they related? How did evolution lead to
patterns of global biodiversity in time and space? How do components of biodiversity, especially the socalled “little things that run the world” or “unseen biodiversity,” influence how ecosystems operate?
These are fundamental questions for which we do not have good answers as human activities steadily
erode biodiversity faster than we can catalog it. Over the past 100+ years ESF has played a significant
role in biodiversity exploration, natural resource management, and natural history study and outreach.
There has also been a complementary training program for undergraduate and graduate students with a
strong focus on organismal biology and field work. This has resulted in many graduates who are welltrained in natural history and resource management, especially in ecological monitoring and biodiversity
assessment, and in environmental education. ESF enjoys a strong reputation in in the area of biodiversity
exploration, conservation and education.
2. Proposed process
• ESF should consider investing in capacity-building in biodiversity and bioinformatics with the
goal of becoming the central clearinghouse for biodiversity information in NYS and for
strategically selected groups globally. Notably currently there is no central clearinghouse for
biodiversity information in NYS (NYS BRI closed in 2009) even though there is a
recognized growing need for 'biodiversity information' among decision-makers. As such, ESF
should develop a statewide biodiversity inventory and assessment program in conjunction with
the New York Natural Heritage Program now under the ESF umbrella.
•
•
•
•
•
•
ESF should establish a formal undergraduate major in taxonomy and systematics and should
consider developing and adopting a 'certification program' for parataxonomists from developing
nations, perhaps through the International Institute for Species Exploration. Our network of field
stations should play an integral role in training. Our MPS program could also be targeted more
towards the provision of professional training across the disciplines.
ESF should expand, upgrade, integrate, and digitize the natural history collections that it has
amassed over the past 100 years. These should provide foci for both research and education on
biodiversity. This entails greatly improving curation capacity, collections space, and collections
visibility and interactivity with the public.
ESF should utilize students and faculty across the disciplines to develop training and educational
aids in biodiversity science with the goal of developing a statewide biodiversity education and
outreach program. This could also include development and promotion of various public
involvement projects (participation in surveys, etc) through a dedicated website.
ESF should promote the sharing of knowledge on local/global biodiversity through regular
events/media coverage/fora on the campus for a wide range of potential audiences.
ESF should dedicate resources to educating the next generation of scientists focused on the socalled “little things that run the world”, that is “unseen biodiversity” with a major but poorly
understood role in ecosystem function and ultimately human well-being.
ESF should increase our strength in data analyses and bioinformatics. ESF needs to educate the
next generation in analyzing and utilizing the massive genetic datasets that most biodiversity
discovery involves today.
**********
Subquestion #2 – How do human-induced disturbances affect biodiversity? (Katherina Bendz
Searing and Thomas R. Horton, lead)
We should judge every scrap of biodiversity as priceless while we learn to use it and come to understand
what it means to humanity.
E.O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life
As the human population grows, we continue to demand more of the earth’s resources. Our use of the
land, water, ecosystem services, and the degradation of those systems can have lasting detrimental
impacts on all of the associated biota, including humans. It is important for us to build an understanding
of the diversity of organisms on the earth, how they contribute to the structure and function of their
ecosystems and how we can lessen our impacts on ecosystems and their diverse biota, while still
supporting human cultures.
We have seen the negative impact of human activities across multiple scales and ecosystems including
within the city of Syracuse, throughout the Northeast, and across the world. Locally there are examples
of human-induced disturbances, including bodies of water polluted by industrial waste, forest soils
impacted from acid rain and nitrogen deposition, invasive species, and habitat loss through human activity
to name a few.
Our first goal is to understand the systems as they function with minimal anthropogenic impact, (i.e. its
“natural” state), to collect baseline data on the biota and how the organisms contribute to ecosystem
processes. Renewed effort should be focused across scales to understand the impacts of organisms from
keystone predators on sustainable prey populations, to the role of plant pollinators on plant species
fitness, to the impact of microbes on aquatic food webs and healthy forest soil. It is estimated that over
90% of the microbes in terrestrial and aquatic systems cannot be cultured and are poorly known. These
unseen organisms play critical roles in forest soils, mountain streams, open oceans, and even the human
body. Further, it is important to utilize current technological advances to this end: our knowledge of
microbes is largely based on those we can culture. We now have unprecedented access to the unseen biota
and an opportunity to gain much more knowledge about the roles these organisms play.
Our second goal is to build an understanding of ourselves as a part of these ecological systems. How do
our activities impact the diverse biota of these systems and do these activities result in changes to the
structure and function of the ecosystems. Like the issue with unseen organisms, some of our impacts
remain undetected for decades. Examples of unseen human impacts on biota and ecosystems include the
overuse of antibiotics selecting for resistant pathogen strains, the release of ballast water into the Great
Lakes introducing invasive species, and the past use of fire-control contributing to increased incidence of
catastrophic fires today. The goal is to comprehend the dynamics of the system, and their complexities, at
all scales and including the human-induced alterations.
Our third goal is to utilize this information to find ways to lessen our impacts so that the structure and
function of the ecosystems can be maintained in robust and resilient ways. This could be accomplished
by searching for examples of human societies that are well integrated into and work with their natural
systems or by utilizing biomimicry and creating biomimetic models. This information would then be an
example for others who could alter their structures and processes to similarly lessen their impacts on the
natural world.
SUNY-ESF already has faculty members whose research relates to the science, engineering, and design
elements needed to address this topic. Future research on this topic could integrate and create synergy
among nearly all of the research disciplines at SUNY-ESF, including Environmental & Forest Biology,
Chemistry, Environmental Resources Engineering, Environmental Studies, Environmental Science,
Forest and Natural Resources Management, Landscape Architecture and Sustainable Construction
Management and Engineering. SUNY-ESF has a unique advantage to perform research in this field
because of our sole focus on environmental and sustainability issues and our field properties where we
can study these systems at multiple scales, from molecules to ecosystems (in the Syracuse area, the
Adirondacks, New York State, and beyond).
To achieve outstanding research on this topic, SUNY-ESF needs a couple of additional hires who
specialize in biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and global change. Integrating faculty from multiple
disciplines to address this question and these goals requires an organizational framework that allows them
to collaborate seamlessly across departments.
**********
Subquestion #3: How could ESF become a leader on issues of biodiversity and human health?
(James P. Gibbs, lead)
Justification, significance, and objective
Health is a fundamental human right and a critical indicator of sustainable development. Biodiversity is
the cornerstone of human health by providing life-sustaining goods and services. Yet the benefits that
biodiversity provides to our health and well-being are largely unrecognized. For this reason, biodiversity
fails to be integrated in decisions on human health strategies. Similarly, the public health importance of
biodiversity is not well appreciated by those concerned with biodiversity conservation. For these reasons
the interactions between biodiversity and human health represent a strategic niche for ESF to expand into
given our current yet unfocused strengths in these areas as well as proximity (physical and institutional) to
SUNY Upstate Medical University. The objective is to enable ESF to become a national leader in
articulating value of biodiversity to human well-being and thereby promote more effective integration of
biodiversity into private and public decision-making related to human health.
Key questions related to this subquestion and proposed process
1. What is the social, cultural and spiritual importance of biodiversity?
1.1. Issue: Biodiversity erosion, ecosystem change and disconnection from nature affect physical and
mental well-being and causes loss of cultural identity. The result is ‘diseases of affluence’
(obesity, diabetes, heart disease), psychological disorders (especially depression), retarded
physical recovery from illness in hospitals and diminished learning in schools (especially urban
ones), impaired cognitive development in children, and anti-social behavior.
1.2. Alignment and integration: LA (bringing nature into design), Biology (informing design,
reconnecting with nature through natural history, interpretation / citizen engagement),
Environmental Studies (many dimensions), FNRM (especially outdoor recreation), Outreach,
USFS Northeast Research Station, SUNY Upstate Medical University
1.3. Augmentation: Environmental psychology, reinvigorated and well supported natural history
education program, expanded nature interpretation program, outdoor recreation program reinvigoration, and more explicit integration with SUNY Upstate Medical University’s relevant
programs
2. How does biodiversity conservation contribute to adaptation to climate change and natural
disasters?
2.1. Issue: Sustainable management of biodiversity is critical for promoting health and rebuilding
livelihoods in a rapidly changing environment. Intact ecosystems buffer communities from
impacts of climate change and natural disasters, e.g., forest cover and desertification, changing
hydrology and dryland salinity, wetland conservation and flood-risk. Poor rural communities
especially are more dependent upon natural ecosystems for their livelihood security as are people
displaced by disaster or conflict.
2.2. Alignment and integration: LA (robust nature-based design), ERE (many aspects of
environmental engineering that integrate natural ecosystems), Biology (applying ecology to
inform design in LA and engineering in ERE), Environmental Studies (sociology), FNRM
(importance of forests for so many ecosystem services), Outreach
2.3. Augmentation: Need more emphasis and resources devoted to solving real problems and ones
that are both global and local in nature
3. How is biological resource security related to livelihood sustainability?
3.1. Issue: Genetic diversity in biological resources provides the foundation of development and
security of industries and economies that depend on them, e.g, forestry and fisheries, and
promotes resistance and resilience to environmental stresses. Loss of biodiversity can therefore
threaten livelihood sustainability and our future biological resource security.
3.2. Alignment and integration: FNRM, Paper Science, EFB, Chemistry
3.3. Augmentation: More capacity in bioinformatics, genomics, bioprospecting, genetic engineering,
DNA archiving
4. What is the contribution of biodiversity to traditional and modern medicine and medical
research?
4.1. Issue: Wild animals and plants are the cornerstone of traditional medicines for indigenous and
local communities as well as precursors for many industrial medicines. Moreover, examination
of the anatomy, physiology and biochemistry of wild animals has led to many advances in
human medicine. ESF is uniquely positioned to collaborate with the medical establishment given
its strengths in zoology, botany, chemistry
4.2. Alignment and integration: Biology, Chemistry, SUNY Upstate Medical University, CNPE, Env.
Studies (ethics)
4.3. Augmentation: More applied zoologists and botanists, indigenous scholars, applied chemists
5. How is biodiversity related to emergence of infectious diseases?
5.1. Issue: Emergence or spread of infectious diseases in animals, plants and humans has been tied
directly to biodiversity loss and ecosystem change, e.g., SARS, Ebola, Marburg, Hantavirus
pulmonary syndrome, avian influenza and malaria. Moreover, many control programs for
infectious diseases damage biodiversity.
5.2. Alignment and integration: EFB, SUNY Upstate Medical University
5.3. Augmentation: Disease ecologist
**********
Subquestion #4: How can ESF integrate biodiversity into private and public decision-making?
(Andrea M. Parker, lead)
Rationale, justification, significance
For years conservation scientists have attempted to garner support for the protection of biodiversity,
developing concepts such as ecosystem services, which attempts to place economic value on services
provided by a functioning ecosystem (Ehrlich and Mooney 1983). These attempts stem from an
understanding that humanity acts upon an issue if it (1) has value to society, be it intrinsic or economic, or
(2) poses a risk to society. Though the ecosystem services concept has had limited success with its focus
on economic valuation, its sole reliance upon the economic system has had some unintended
consequences. (Peterson et al. 2010).
In society it is also understood that environmental issues such as the protection of biodiversity require
some level of agreement amongst policy-makers in order to act, which in turn requires citizenry support
(Dolnicar et al. 2010). The science communication model has typically focused on communicating the
scientific process, findings and concepts with the main goal of improving scientific understanding
(Graves 1995), which is then hoped to lead to public acceptance and social action. Unfortunately this
model often falls flat because of a failure to account for value systems and worldviews (Boudet et al.
2014) present within society that can render a scientific argument moot.
Lessons learned from both of these approaches lead us to conclude that conservation scientists cannot just
tell the public how to act in relation to environmental issues or convince them of value by relying on a
single valuation system such as economics. Therefore other alternative strategies are needed. One
possibility stemming from environmental and natural resources conflict resolution studies is to engage the
public early in the process of environmental decision-making in order to take knowledge, value systems
and worldviews into consideration when developing methods for preserving ecological integrity in both
the public and private sector. Such an approach would infuse science education, biophysical and social
systems thinking and values in a way that could overcome some of the previous barriers to sound
environmental decision-making. ESF faculty has expertise in these areas making the institution a prime
location for further exploration of this strategy.
Key questions related to this subquestion and proposed process
1. Why does biodiversity matter to society?
a. Issue: Humanity is not outside the natural order. Indeed, we rely upon the planet for basic
habitat needs. As such, we require functioning biophysical systems to serve these needs;
biodiversity being a big part of keeping those systems functioning. We as humans
acknowledge this, but we process our dependence upon the biophysical world through social
systems which can fragment our thinking in relation to the importance of biodiversity. This
disconnect serves as one of our biggest hurtles to understanding why biodiversity matters.
b. Alignment and integration: EFB and FNRM (biophysical systems knowledge and research),
FNRM, ES and LA (social systems knowledge and research)
c. Augmentation: (1) need more interdisciplinary faculty that can bridge the social and
biophysical disciplines for the purposes of research and outreach; (2) need more targeted
social science research addressing biodiversity
2. How can ESF increase sense of public ownership in appreciating biodiversity and better engage
our students in the process?
a. Issue: It is difficult to determine where best to focus efforts of education and communication
about biodiversity and its importance to humanity to the general public. K-12 education is a
default space for engagement because this is the time and space where people develop their
environmental ideologies and knowledge about environmental systems (Corbett 2006).
College is another popular space for cultivating such knowledge and interests. This focus on
our formal education system, however, fails to include the public once they leave the
academic setting. The problem then becomes an issue of engagement about biodiversity
within and outside of the academic system so that knowledge and appreciation/value for
biodiversity can continue beyond formal education.
b. Alignment and integration: EFB, FNRM, ES and the outreach office (science/environmental
education, outreach and interpretation)
c. Augmentation: Greater focus on outreach (incorporating our students into such efforts to get
them experience interacting with the public in multiple forums) and professional experience
(i.e., credits, certifications, web-based tutorials – for ESF students and for individuals outside
of the institution)
3. How can we engage humanity in discussions of biodiversity early enough in the process that
there is co-development of ideas for its protection?
a. Issue: Biodiversity is a big topic that can be addressed at multiple scales (e.g., from a woodlot
or pond to the Earth as a whole). This scale impacts how to go about public involvement in
discussions of biodiversity preservation. Often we think to involve the public in discussions
after determining the scientific facts of the situation. This thinking, however, is changing
through the implementation of citizen science, where the public contributes to scientific
information. Though public involvement in science is one way to engage citizenry, and a
useful one for encouraging interest and buy-in, other social systems such as policy, law and
economics, to name a few, are other important spaces for engagement. Like citizen science,
the thought is to engage people in the process early enough that they feel like they have a
degree of ownership in the outcome and a better appreciation for the resource in question.
b. Alignment and integration: (1) EFB, FNRM, ES, LA and outreach office (science education,
policy, planning, law, communication, interpretation and outreach); (2) relationships with
Maxwell School at SU
c. Augmentation: (1) build in the areas of science and environmental education (formal and
informal), policy, planning and communication – disciplines geared toward public
engagement in environmental and natural resources issues; (2) expand our use of various
communication mediums such as online media and public workshops; (3) use some resources
for the State Fair activities toward a restoration project that involves public participation (i.e.,
fair-related public volunteer experience)
4. How do our decisions affect the impacts of natural and anthropogenic disturbances?
a. Issue: The decisions we make as a society impact the biophysical world in a plethora of ways,
some directly and others indirectly. This provides a space for scientific investigation, and in
some cases problem solving when negative impacts or disturbances have occurred that can
effect environmental and human-made systems. These disturbances therefore may require
monitoring, restoration and/or rehabilitation in order to understand and potentially alter a
system.
b. Alignment and integration: (1) Chemistry, EFB, FNRM, ERE, LA and SCME (biophysical
systems and engineering knowledge and research); (2) relationships with Upstate
c. Augmentation: Greater encouragement for multi and interdisciplinary research at the
institution-level – already seeing this push by the National Science foundation and within the
SUNY system with SUNY 4E
5. How do we engage both the public and private sectors in biodiversity decision-making?
a. Issue: Research related to biodiversity is taking place at various scales in different geographic
locations. Unfortunately how this scientific information is being used and how biodiversity is
even being defined within the public and private sector for decision-making is not clear.
Overall it seems that more of our knowledge of biodiversity-related policy is in the public
sector, generally related to the management of public lands or private lands set aside for
conservation through easements, etc. Some research is also done within the private sector,
though generally as it relates to conservation organization lands. This leaves gaps in our
private sector knowledge and space for future research, in addition to ongoing efforts on
public lands.
b. Alignment and integration: (1) EFB and FNRM (biophysical systems knowledge and
research), FNRM, ES and LA (social systems knowledge and research); (2) Maxwell and
Whitman Schools at SU
c. Augmentation: Greater encouragement and training (i.e., workshops, mentoring) for multi
and interdisciplinary as well as transdisciplinary research at the institution-level. As noted
above, we are already seeing a push for multi and interdisciplinary work, but we need more
research that is done in collaboration with practitioners (transdisciplinary) if we are to better
access the private sector.
References
Boudet, H., C. Clarke, D. Bugden, E. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, and A. Leiserowitz. 2014. “Fracking” controversy
and communication: using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy
Policy 65:57-67.
Corbett, J. B. 2006. Communicating nature: how we create and understand environmental messages. Washington
DC: Island Press.
Dolnicar, S., A. Hurlimann, and L.D. Nghiem. 2010. The effect of information on public acceptance - The case of
water from alternative sources. Journal of Environmental Management 91:1288-1293.
Ehrlich, P. R., and H. A. Mooney. 1983. Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services. BioScience 33:248–254.
Graves, H. B. 1995. Rhetoric and reality in the process of scientific inquiry. Rhetoric Review 14:106-125.
Peterson, M. J., D. M. Hall, A. M. Feldpausch-Parker, and T. R. Peterson. 2010. Obscuring ecosystem function with
application of the ecosystem services concept. Conservation Biology 24:113-119.