This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
International Long-Term Ecological
Research: a Role in Research, Inventorying
and Monitoring Forest Ecosystem
Resources 1
James R. Gosz2
Abstract-Long-term data are crucial to our understanding of
environmental change and management. Historically, these studies have been difficult to maintain because ofthe dominance of short
term funding programs, a misconception that long-term studies are
merely monitoring, and emphasis on short term experimentation or
hypothesis testing of specific interactions or processes. The literature also demonstrates a dominance of single, small-scale studies
and a focus on a few species. The concept integrates comprehensive
understanding of ecosystem processes, model development and the
use of regional monitoring and survey data to develop regional
understanding of natural resource conditions. The LTER concept is
shown as contributing to multiple scale studies and complex assemblages of species. The need for collaborations among the numerous
scientists and high-quality programs that are involved in understanding the various areas of our globe is a strong argument for the
development of a worldwide network of LTER sites and programs.
The main objectives of the ILTER are to:
• Promote and enhance understanding of long term ecological
phenomena across national and regional boundaries;
• Facilitate interaction among participating scientists across
sites and disciplines;
• Promote comparability of observations and experiments, the
integration of research and monitoring, and encourage data
exchange;
• Enhance training and education;
• Contribute to the scientific basis for ecosystem management
and improve predictive modeling at larger spatial and temporal
scales.
LTER sites in the countries of the ILTER Network can provide
unparalleled opportunities for cross-site and comparative research
efforts on many ofthe world's ecosystems. It is anticipated that each
country's program will be part of a global network of scientists and
of scientific information that will advance our understanding of not
only local and regional, but also global, issues and provide solutions
to environmental problems at these scales. These global LTER sites
function as "research platforms" that lead to interdisciplinary
research, extrapolation to larger areas or regions, provide the
scientific basis for management and policy decisions that incorporate social and economic issues. The expected development of a
MexicanLTERNetwork will allow the collaboration between Mexico,
U.S. and Canada in a North American Regional LTER Network.
Ipaper presented at the North American Science Symposium: Toward a
Unified Framework for Inventorying and Monitoring Forest Ecosystem
Resources, Guadalajara, Mexico, November 1-6,1998.
2 James Gosz is Professor of Biology, Biology Department, University of
New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131.
190
A primary role for the ecological sciences is to develop an
understanding of the environment that is required for managing our natural resource base in a sustainable manner.
Regardless of whether we are testing theory, evaluating
new techniques, evaluating management effects, or any of a
number of other research endeavors, the ultimate value of
such research is to increase our ability to understand the
environment. Developing such insights over both time and
space scales are important contributions of the many fields
of ecology in combination with other disciplines in the
biophysical, social and economic sciences. Modern ecological
science recognizes that the environment is:
• Complex-many interacting factors are involved in ecological processes;
• Dynamic-factors vary over time in complex ways;
• Spatially variable-heterogeneous and exhibits different patterns at different scales;
• Biologically diverse-complex assemblages of thousands
of interacting species;
• Physical-Chemical-Biological-Social-Economic controlled. Interdisciplinary efforts are needed to understand ecological patterns and processes.
This recognition then identifies the serious challenges we
have in our research needs. For management of natural
resources, the above list indicates that we need to develop
our understanding of the environment based on multiple
control factors, long term studies, multiple spatial scales,
many species interacting in complex ways and interdisciplinary interactions. Since we recognize what is needed to
understand the complexity of the environment and manage
its natural resources, are we doing it? Are other nations
doing it? One way of approaching these questions is to ask
why so many countries are now developing Long Term Ecological Research programs and networks. Figure 1 shows
the 15 countries that have recognized national programs in
Long Term Ecological Research, as well as those near to
having such national recognition and those in the initial
stages of the process as of October, 1998. This development
has occurred in only the last 4 years following an international conference at the end of 1993. The list is dynamic as
countries complete the development of their programs and
additional countries become interested. Updated versions of
the map will be viewable at (http://www.ilternet.edu). Certainly, many or most of these countries have research,
inventorying and monitoring programs, so why has there
been such interest in the development of an additional
research program geared to Long Term Ecological Research?
The same question can be asked of the U.S., does our current
knowledge base allow the understanding needed to manage
our natural resources in a sustainable way.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Official IL TER
Networks
• Brazil
-Canada
·China
- China-Taipei
+Colombia
-Costa Rica
+ Czech Republic
+ Hungary
+Israel
+Korea
+Mongolia
+Poland
• United Kingdom
• United States
+Uruguay
+Venezuela
L TER Networks in
development,
awaiting formal
recognition from
their governments
Countries expressing interest in
developing a network of L TER sites
•
•
•
•
•
•
*Bolivia
*Chile
+ Croatia
+Oenmark
• Ecuador
* Finland
Argentina
Australia
Egypt
France
Ireland
Japan
• Mexico
• Morocco
• Paraguay
+ Portugal
• South Africa
• Spain
*
*
+
+
Indonesia
Italy
Kenya
Namibia
+ Norway
• Peru
• Slovenia
+ Sweden
.Switzerland
• Tanzania
+ Panama
Figure 1
An analysis of the ecological literature in the U.S. provides some idea of how well we are doing in the development of information to meet these needs. Many studies
(e.g., chapters and references in Likens 1989) demonstrate
that short-term studies can provide misleading results.
The environment is very dynamic and varies significantly
over time. A study during 1 or 2 years captures only a
"snapshot" of the variability and runs the risk of drawing
incorrect conclusions about the behavior of ecological systems (Wiens 1997). Although the results of 1-2 years of
research may be accurate for that period, extending the
interpretation of those results to longer periods is misleading as other periods may have very different results and
interpretations. The book by Cody and Smallwood (1996)
has many chapters that demonstrate time after time how
short-term conclusions may be abridged or overturned by a
longer perspective. In spite ofthat knowledge, the literature
continues to publish extensively about these snapshots in
time. Tilman (1989) analyzed 623 experimental and 180
field studies and reported that over 75% were 1-2 year
studies. Analyses of a recent journal of Ecology issue show
little change from Tilman's analysis. Of 25 studies in the
volume 7 (1998), No.6 issue of Ecology, 84% were based on
1-2 years of data. This indicates that our literature (i.e.,
knowledge base) is biased toward short-term results and it is
difficult to synthesize this knowledge to understand the
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
natural dynamics in the environment. In another analysis
of the ecological literature, Weatherhead (1986) found that
of 332 plant, invertebrate and vertebrate studies from
desert, temperate and tropical habitats, the mean duration
was 1-2 years, and further that only about 10% captured
"unusual" events such as droughts, wet episodes, insect
infestations. We know that these infrequent events are
critical in our understanding of forcing functions on the
environment and many ecological processes react in a very
different way after the "event" than before (Burke, et al.
1991, 1997). Thus, much of our ecological literature fails to
document and analyze many of the significant influences
on ecological functions. The Volume 7, No. 6 issue of
Ecology had no studies that captured an unusual event.
Why has there been such emphasis on short-term
research in the U.S.? Many reasons, ranging from the
pressure on many scientists to publish frequently (using
1-2 years data) to a dominance of short term research
awards, pressure to get results fast, and changing issues in
funding agencies. Thus, traditional science is biased in
certain ways as a result of the systems we have for doing
and rewarding science, and as a result, our knowledge
base is biased. This seems to be true for many countries
suggesting a general human/society influence on the way
the environment is studied and research is performed.
191
Analyses of the ecological literature identify other biases
relative to the understanding needed for natural resource
management. Wiens (unpubl data), Valone and Brown
(1996), Kareiva (1994) identify that the spatial scales of
study are biased toward single scales that often are done at
1 m 2 • We are aware of the scale dependency of our studies
meaning that the scale at which we study the environment
"determines" the result that we get. It is similar to studying
a process for 1-2 years in that, when we study determines
the result just as the scale we use "determines" the result
(Levin 1992). The results of the ecological literature in the
U.S. are biased to results based on single and small spatial
scales! This is especially relevant for landscape management programs that need broad scale and multiple scale
analyses. The literature is difficult to use for syntheses of
information on how processes vary with scale. The Volume 7, No.6 issue of Ecology showed that all studies but
two used a single scale and 50% used the scale of 1 m 2 •
Kareiva (1994) and Valone and Brown (1996) also demonstrated that the ecological literature is biased toward studies
ofonly 1 or 2 species at a time. Although we know that many
thousands of species are involved in ecological processes, it
is very difficult to use the current literature to understand
how species complexity influences processes important in
natural resource management.
Finally, the literature is biased toward single discipline
results. We have many discipline-specificjournals, disciplinespecific departments in academic institutions, disciplinespecific societies, all of which promote a literature that does
not demonstrate the interdisciplinary understanding
needed for understanding our environment. Most of our
government agencies or ministries have focused missions
that further impose a narrow focus. These biases may be the
most serious and the most difficult to overcome! While the
data from the studies discussed previously are judged by the
scientific review process as scientifically valid, they limit the
synthesis required to meet the challenge of understanding a
complex, dynamic, diverse and heterogeneous environment.
We desperately need to develop efforts that can
complement the more numerous activities that generate the above biases.
Long Term Ecological Research; a
Model for Integrated Research
Following the International Biological Program (lBP) of
the 1970's, the ecological community in the U.S. developed
discussions with the National Science Foundation to hold a
number ofworkshops on the value oflong term research that
could continue the type of science developed during IBP.
That resulted in the formation of the Long Term Ecological
Research (LTER) program in the U.S. in 1980. The rationale
was to develop long term measurements and experiments
that would fill what was identified as a deficiency of results
at the temporal scales of decades to centuries. From the
original designation of6 sites, the program has grown to a
network of 21 sites stretching from Alaska to the Antarctic
and from habitats as diverse as tropical forests, lakes,
deserts, alpine tundra, row agriculture and urban environmentS. Additional sites are expected to be added to the
network. That program has demonstrated convincingly of
192
the value oflong-term research, but more importantly, that
other types of studies occur that address deficiencies in the
research of spatial scales, complex factor control, diverse
species assemblages and interdisciplinary interactions. For
example, as ecological processes are studied for multiple
decades, infrequent events are captured that demonstrate
their importance as well as lead natur~lly to questions and
the study of the broader scales associated with these infrequent events (e.g., regional drought, Burke et al. 1997). The
research at broader scales plus the ability of the comprehensive efforts at long term research sites to utilize multiple
platforms from ground-based measurements to satellite
imagery allows such cross-scale research. In the U.S. LTER
program there has been a natural tendency for multiple
scales of research to develop associated with the long-term
data sets and studies of many variables. Thus, as a result of
performing long term studies that relate to decade temporal
scales, the LTER program demonstrates a complementary
ability to develop multiple scale studies from local to regional environments. There are other presentations at this
conference that will demonstrate the contributions of
LTER programs located in forested regions. Here I want to
demonstrate the natural progression of scientific questions
across spatial scales for a short grass steppe in Colorado.
This example demonstrates how the questions evolve following the development of long term data sets and the
observations of phenomena that are related to larger spatial scales. The following figures can be viewed at (http://
sgs.cnr.colostate.edulsgshome.htD along with literature for
this research site.
The Shortgrass Steppe Long Term Ecological Research
Project has been conducting regional analysis since 1988.
The overall goal in this research has been to understand the
current pattern of ecosystem structure and function in the
central grasslands of the U.S., and to assess the sensitivity
of the region to changes in climate and landuse. The initial
analyses, conducted in the late 1980's, focused on the analysis of regional point data, and assessed the relationships
between climatic and soil variables and aboveground net
primary productivity (Sala et al. 1988) and soil carbon
(Burke et al. 1989). Mter analyzing results that included
extreme events (e.g., drought) representative of broader
scales, the question became ''what area does our site adequately represent?" To what area can we logically extrapolate the results from our site-level investigations
(Burke et al. 1990). Using a number of regional databases
(Fig. 2), the results suggest that the climate, soils, and
landuse of the Shortgrass Steppe LTER site represent
approximately 23% of the total shortgrass steppe area.
Outside of this region the models that were developed were
inaccurate. That led to new efforts to understand why the
models were wrong and to reparamaterize the models to
work through the central grassland region.
More recently, they developed a large spatial database,
organized in a geographic information system, of climatic
variables (precipitation and temperature), soils data, plant
species distributions, and landuse. The three sets of questions for this expanded research program were:
1. What are the regional, spatial controls over plant
species distributions, and how will these distributions
change under global climate change?; and
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Figure 2
2. What are the regional, spatial controls over landuse
management, how will the"se distributions change under
global change, and
3. What are the regional impacts of landuse management on regional climate, and on ecosystem structure and
function throughout the region?
-~.
:
Two general techniques were used in this research (Burke
et al. 1991). The first was pattern analysis, in which multivariate analysis was conducted on the data to establish
important relationships among variables. The second was
simulation analysis, in which the spatial database was
linked to simulation models to extrapolate across the region
and into the future (Coleman et al. 1994). Examples of
results from these new studies at the regional scale are
the estimate of carbon loss in the region from 1900 to 1995
(fig. 3) and average grain yields (fig. 4) for the region.
These results demonstrate another very important aspect of these research-intensive sites. The combination of
comprehensive understanding of the ecosystem processes
and model development plus regional monitoring and survey information allowed the development of regional simulation models. The research or surveys or monitoring by
themselves is insufficient. The combination develops unique
capabilities to work at regional scales.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
What is the relationship between long-term research
and our understanding of biodiversity or the complex
assemblages of species in an environment? Here too, long
term studies have been influential. There are two typical
results from long-term research sites that show their value.
First, because populations of some species vary through
time from abundant to many being rare or undetectable a
single survey mayor may not record all of the species 'as
present. Long-term studies more often detect higher numbers of species by because they see these variations over
time. For example, at the Sevilleta LTER site in New
Mexico, U.S., (http://sevilleta.unm.edu)vascular plant species richness can vary 3-fold between wet and dry years.
For the Northern Temperate Lakes LTER in Wisconsin, U.S.,
(limnology. wisc.eduf'http://limnosun.limnology. wisc. eduL)
zooplankton species richness for a 12-year period was twice
the richness for any single year during the period. The
second result is based on the value of the long-term research
site for research in general. These sites allow a continuity of
research efforts because of the protection of the site and
generate data of various types that are useful for many
studies. This makes the site more and more valuable for
other studies and the experience has been that other disciplines are attracted to the site to work on their specific
taxonomic groups. This results in a general increase in the
193
Figure 3
species studied on the site and an increase in the identification of species present. Species richness increases directly
as a result of research efforts looking for more species! The
studies of these species being performed on the same site
and over similar periods of time allow increased understanding of how the complexity of species assemblages is
related to the functional properties of the ecosystem.
The same features that attract many people working on
different taxonomic groups also is attractive to people from
different disciplines. In addition to the core areas in the U.S.
LTER program that require the integration of different
disciplines (e.g., population biology, nutrient dynamics, hydrology, climate), the sites become valuable for collaborative
studies in areas such as hydrogeology, atmospheric physics/
chemistry, genetics, microbial ecology, systematics, landscape ecology, social/economic sciences as well as development of theory, new techniques and land management
approaches. Long term research sites result in intensive
studies by many individuals and disciplines working on
common areas at similar times that facilitates the integration
194
of information! In addition, the data developed for these
studies are managed effectively and archived for the use of
other scientists, now and in the future. Data management is
an important function in the success of LTER. These sites
function like research platforms that concentrate the work
of many scientists and disciplines to accomplish studies,
integration, and syntheses in ways that are difficult for the
more typical research efforts. They complement traditional
research in ways that reduce the biases present in the
ecological literature.
The development ofinterisive and comprehensive research
efforts at individual sites provides additional value when
cross-site comparisons and experiments are performed.
"The power ofthe network approach of the LTER program
rests in the ability to compare similar processes (e.g.,
primary production or decomposition of organic matter)
under different ecological conditions. As a result, LTER
scientists should be able to understand how fundamental
ecological processes operate at different rates and in different ways under different environmental conditions" (Risser
et al. 1993).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Figure 4
ILTER: Extending the Model
Internationally
The need for collaborations among the numerous scientists and high-quality programs that are involved in understanding the various areas of our globe is an even stronger
argument for the development of a worldwide network of
LTER sites and programs. As a result of an international
meeting in 1993 to focus exclusively on networking oflongterm ecological research, an International LTER (lLTER)
Network was formed with a mission to facilitate international cooperation among scientists engaged in long-term
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
ecological research. Thirty-nine scientists and administrators representing 16 countries participated and developed
the initial recommendations for the network. The International LTER needs were identified as:
1. Communication & Information Access for LTER Researchers Worldwide
• Determine the general connectivity status ofLTER sites
and scientists by country or region
• Mter completing a connectivity assessment, organize a
clearinghouse system to facilitate technology and skills
transfer between sites
195
• Create an information server on the global Internet to
provide worldwide access to information and data relevant to international long-term ecological research
• Establish an interna~onal LTER (ILTER) server access
mechanism (or mechanisms) for researchers in regions
presently without access to the international Internet
2. Developing a Global Directory of LTER Research Sites
• Develop minimum site capabilities or standards for
.
inclusion in an ILTER directory
• Identify existing and potential LTER sites worldwide
• Create both electronic and hard-copy versions of an
ILTER directory to be updated regularly
• Form a directory working group to help define tasks and
secure funding for the creation of an ILTER directory
3. Developing LTER Programs Worldwide
• Encourage the pairing of mature and developing sites
which share similar ecological settings and encourage
cooperation between pairs of established sites within or
between countries
• Produce an inventory of sources of financial support for
ILTER activities and infrastructure at participating
sites
4. Scaling, Sampling and Standardization: Some Design
Issues. The following questions should be addressed by
LTER sites:
• Will phenomena, which occur over long time scales, be
adequately sampled over appropriate spatial scales?
• What is the spatial and temporal range over which site
data can be legitimately extrapolated, and what
method(s) will be used?
• How much effort will be required for synthesis and
intersite comparison, and has flexibility for subsequent
adjustment of observations been incorporated into the
design?
• Have the selected measurements been adequately tested,
and have the required precision and frequency of observations been specified?
• Does the range of variables selected adequately reflect
the full range of driving, state and response variables for
the system under investigation?
5. Education, Public Relations and Relationships with
Decisionmakers
• ILTER sites should be used as sources of information for
formal higher education and interdisciplinary curricula
development
• ILTERsites should be used as sources of information for
elementary and secondary school curricula development
• ILTER sites and networks should provide clear and
accurate information on LTER research to the general
public and decisionmakers
The ILTER Network Committee has continued and broadened its activities through annual meetings. Following the
initial conference in the United States in 1993, meetings
have been held in the U.K. (1994), Hungary (1995), Panama!
Costa Rica (1996), Taiwan (1997) and Italy (1998).
The committee has established the following mission
statements, based primarily on the 1993 conference:
1. Promote and enhance the understanding of long-term
ecological phenomena across national and regional boundaries;
196
2. Promote comparative analysis and synthesis across
sites;
3. Facilitate interaction among participating scientists
across disciplines and sites;
4. Promote comparability of observations and experiments, integration of research and monitoring, and encourage data exchange;
5. Enhance training and education in comparative longterm ecological research and its relevant technologies;
6. Contribute to the scientific basis for ecosystem
management;
7. Facilitate international collaboration among comprehensive, site-based, long-term, ecological research programs;
and
8. Facilitate development of such programs in regions
where they currently do not exist.
Each country must assess its own needs and resources if
it wishes to involve itself in an ILTER program. Each will
have a unique set of opportunities and limitations that are
best evaluated by the scientists and policy makers of that
country. The typical procedure for a country is for the
scientists of that country, along with the funding agencies,
to decide whether to endorse the premise that ecology and
environmental management are significantly benefited by
studies in long-term and broad spatial scales. A plan is then
developed that establishes the context and mission for such
studies, sites and programs identified that will contribute to
this mission, and support is obtained from within that
country or international organizations for implementation
and continued maintenance. It is anticipated that each
country's program will be part of a global network of scientists and of scientific information that will advance our
understanding of not only local and regional, but also global
issues and provide solutions to environmental problems at
these scales (Gosz 1996).
A more recent development among a number of countries
is the formation of Regional LTER Networks. Neighboring
countries often have similar issues and have demonstrated
increased opportunities for collaboration and increased support to other countries in the region that are attempting to
develop their own LTER Network. The East Asian-Pacific
Regional LTER Network and the Latin American Regional
LTER Network have been formed and are holding their own
annual meetings in addition to the ILTER annual meetings.
A Central Europe Regional LTER Network is being planned
at this time and this conference will play an important role
in the development of a North American Regional LTER
Network.
Development of a North American
Regional LTER Network _ _ __
Collaboration among Canada's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN, http://www.cciw.ca!
emanl), the U.S. LTER Network (http://www.lternet.edu),
and a planned Mexican LTER Network (MEXLTER, http://
www.ilternet.edulsitesimexico/) offers excellent possibilities for integrating the LTER research model for North
America. The following description of the Mexican LTER
Network is a statement found at their web site listed above.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Mexico's participation in the International Long Term
Ecological Research Network is important for several reasons. As a result of Mexico's geographic situation and topographic complexity, it supports high levels of species and
ecosystem diversity, representing a major fraction of the
earth's biota. It is imperative that the country understands
and protects this heritage because the combination of extensive rural poverty, low technical support and high population growth has led to a rapid land-use transformation in
the country. Scientific understanding of the effects of landuse changes on natural ecosystems is necessary for developing practices toward sustainable management and conserva tion. Addi tionally, Mexico is affected by ecological processes
that operate at continental scales, such as the EI NinoSouthern Oscillation, which occur infrequently and can only
be understood through collaborative long-term and largescale efforts. Finally, the proximity of Mexico to a wellestablished network of long-term studies creates the opportunity for scientific cooperation and development of
human resources.
The fundamental philosophy of the MEXLTER will be to
address ecological research at large temporal and spatial
scales in a fashion that has not been generally practiced in
Mexico. Through the network structure, sites will have
similar projects and share standardized data. The MEXLTER
program is designed to encompass terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems, including managed ones. National-level studies
should allow comparisons within and across biomes. At an
international level, it should facilitate comparisons within
and across biomes in different geographical areas. Therefore, the network should have representation of the major
biomes within the country, making it desirable to procure
replicated sites within biomes.
The objectives of the MEXLTER are as follows:
1. Establishing a network of sites to allow Mexican scientists to address ecological issues in an interdisciplinary way
on broad spatial and temporal scales. A corollary is to
understand the role of biological diversity in ecosystem
processes and in the provision of services to the biosphere,
including humans.
2. Creating a legacy of well-designed and documented
experiments and observations for future generations.
At present the scientific community in Mexico is in the
process of formally establishing the MEXLTER, working on
an agreement with the National Council of Science and
Technology to obtain funding for beginning the Network
Office and the initial network of sites.
Seven core subjects will define the basic theoretical
framework for the research conducted at the LTER sites.
These subject areas address the most relevant functional
and structural features of ecosystems, and the most pressing
environmental issues for human welfare. Within each
topic area, there will be a background and a hierarchy of
three levels of detail, which will set the priorities for data
acquisition. The core areas are:
• Patterns and control of ecosystem primary productivity
• Patterns and control of water, carbon and nutrient
dynamics in ecosystems
• The role of biodiversity in the structure and functioning
of the ecosystem
• Patterns and frequency of ecosystem disturbance
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
• Effect of climate change on the structure and functioning of ecosystems
• Interactions at the interface level between managed
and natural ecosystems
• Defining criteria for ecosystem management and
conservation
One of the reasons for establishing a network of research
sites is to encourage the development of large-scale and
comparative studies. The establishment of such studies will
require frequent communication among potential collaborators in order to define possible joint studies. In order to
facilitate such communication, the network will organize
meetings of all the scientists involved in the long-term
research at the participating sites. Meetings will be held
every other year during the development of the project and
will be designed to maximize interchange of ideas during
the formative phase of each research project. Additional
goals of the meetings will include the introduction of par ticipating scientists to the concepts of long-term research networks and the importance of key aspects such as data
management and the use of remotely sensed data.
Collaboration of the MEXLTER with regional networks
will be made through regular regional conferences. Presently, the MEXLTER is actively involved with both the
North American and Latin American regional networks.
Collaboration with the global network will be made via the
Internet and specific meetings.
Interactions with GTOS ----------------LTER sites in the countries of the ILTER Network now
can provide unparalleled opportunities for cross-site and
comparative research efforts on many of the world's ecosystems at levels from genes to landscapes. These global LTER
sites function as "research platforms" that lead to interdisciplinary research, extrapolation to larger areas or regions,
provide the scientific basis for management and policy
decisions that incorporate social and economic issues, and
attract scientists from other sites and networks, expanding
the effective "network" of sites. The ILTER Network is now
well positioned to interact with other international activities such as the International Geosphere Biosphere Program (IGBP) and the Global Terrestrial Observing System
(GTOS).
Other international networks are being developed and
many have complementary obj ectives. It will be important to
develop collaboration with these networks to maximize the
value and efficiency of international research efforts. The
Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) was created to
provide policy makers, resource managers and researchers
with access to the data needed to detect, quantify, locate,
understand and warn of changes (especially reduction) in
the capacity ofterrestrial ecosystems to support sustainable
development. The GTOS focus is on five key development
issues of global or regional concern;
•
•
•
•
•
changes in land quality
availability of freshwater resources
loss of biodiversity
pollution and toxicity
climate change
197
ILTER and GTOS have an ongoing collaboration and ILTER
sites will be used in various GTOS demonstration projects
and supply data sets for international use.
ILTER/GTOS Benefits
We anticipate that international collaboration of programs like GTOS and ILTER will have a number of benefits:
1. Designation as a 'participating network'. In many cases,
this will strengthen the justification for continuing measurements at the site(s). It will also provide a natural
focus for coordinated, multidisciplinary measu,rements and
programs.
2. Enhanced collaboration. By being included in a global
network the opportunities for coordinated observations
and scientific collaboration will be much improved. Individual networks will learn from the experiences of other
networks for science, operation and data management.
3. Contribution to global environmental conventions: climate, biodiversity, desertification, and endangered species
among others. The participating networks will make an
important contribution to meeting the political and scientific objectives of these conventions and the responsibility
taken on by their respective countries.
4. Enhancement of the network's impact. In most cases,
the effectiveness of a network's operation will be enhanced
if the collected data are used by others. Also, a network's
program will benefit by having a structured access to data
from other similar networks.
5. Facilitating access to comparative data from a wider
range of sties to improve the interpretation of a particular
site's data.
6. Visibility, both nationally and internationally, through
participating in the networks and in various initiatives.
7. Opportunities for additional funding and benefits. Although the networks will be largely self-financed, it is
expected that supplemental funding will be sought for special initiatives, for pilot projects, to fill gaps in observations,
and for other reasons. The leverage provided by GTOS and
ILTER will be very helpful in making the case for new funds.
198
literature Cited
Burke, I.C., C. Yonkers, W.J. Parton, C.V. Cole, K. Flach, and D.S.
Scbimel. 1989. Texture, climate, and cultivation effects on organic matter in Grassland Soils. Soil Science Society of America
Journal. 53(3): 800-805.
Burke,I.C.,D.S. Scbimel,W.J. Parton, C.M. Yonker, L.A.Joyce, and
W.K. Lauenroth. 1990. Regional modeling of grassland biogeochemistry using GIS. Landscape Ecology: 45-54.
Burke, I.C., T.G.F. Kittel, W.K. Lauenroth, P. Snook, C.M. Yonker
and W.J. Parton. 1991. Regional analysis of the central Great
Plains, sensitivity to climate variability. BioScience 41: 685-692.
Burke, I.C., W.K. Lauenroth, and W.J. Parton. 1997. Regional and
temporal variation in net primary production and nitrogen mineralization in grasslands. Ecology 78: 1330-1340.
Coleman, M.B., T.L. Bearly, I.C. Burke,and W.K. Lauenroth 1994.
Linking ecological simulation models to geographic information
systems: anautomatedsolutionpp. 397-412. In Michener, W. and
J. Brunt (eds). Environmental Information Management and
Analysis: Ecosystem to Global Scales. Taylor and Francis,
London.
Cody, M.L. and J.A. Smallwood. (eds.). 1967. Long-term Studies of
Vertebrate Communities. Academic Press.
Gosz, J.R. 1996. International long-term ecological research: priorities and opportunities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
11: 444.
Kareiva, P. 1994. Higher order interactions as a foil to reductionist
ecology. Ecology. 75: 1527-1528.
Levin, S. A. (1992). The problem of pattern and scale in ecology.
Ecology. 73: 1943-1967.
Likens, G.E. (ed.). 1989. Long-term Studies in Ecology. SpringerVerlag, New York.
Risser P.G., J. Lubchenco, N.L. Christensen, P.J. Dillon, L.n.
Gomez, D.J. Jacob, P.L. Johnson, P. Matson, N.A. Moran, and T.
Rosswall. 1993. Ten-Year Review ofthe National Science Foundation Long-Term Ecological Researth (LTER) Program.
Sala, O.E., W.J. Parton, L.A. Joyce, and W.K. Lauenroth. 1988.
Primary production ofthe central grassland region of the United
States: Spatial pattern and major controls. Ecology. 69: 40-45.
Tilman, D. 1989. Ecological experimentation: strengths and conceptual problems. pp. 136-157. In. Likens, G.E. (ed). Long-Term
Studies in Ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Valone, T.J. and J.H. Brown. 1996. Desert rodents; Long-term
responses to natural changes and experimental manipulations.
pp. 555-583. In: Cody, M.L. and J.A. Smallwood (eds). Long-Term
Studies of Vertebrate Communities. Academic Press.
Weatherhead, P.J. 1986. How unusual are unusual events? American Naturalist. 128: 150-154.
Wiens, J. 1997. Lengthy ecological studies. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution. 12: 499.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999