Frontiers in ecosystem science: Energizing the research agenda

Background/Question/Methods

Ecosystem science has a long history as a core component of the discipline of Ecology, and although topics of research have fluctuated over the years as in any program, it retains a clear identity and continues to be a vital field. As science is becoming more interdisciplinary, particularly the science of global environmental change, ecosystem scientists are addressing new and important questions at the interface with multiple disciplines. Now is an appropriate time to energize and bring together the discipline in pursuit of a research agenda for the future.   Over the last two years, we organized a series of workshops and discussion groups at multiple scientific-society meetings, including the Ecological Society of America.  The workshops featured short “soapbox” presentations where speakers highlighted questions they would pursue if a funder handed them $10 million.  The soapbox presentations were recorded (video and audio) and subjected to qualitative text analysis for identification of frontier themes. Those in attendance at the workshops completed surveys with questions about demographic information, academic background and research focus, preferred definitions and research areas in Ecosystem Science, and opinions and preferences about the soapbox presentations. 

Results/Conclusions

Our effort produced 253 survey participants; the two largest groups of participants were full professors (24%) and graduate students (24%); no other specific group was > 10%.  Formal text analysis of the soapbox presentations produced three major themes; “frontiers,” “capacity building,” and “barriers to implementation” with four or five sub-themes within each major theme. Key “frontiers” included; 1) better understanding of the drivers of ecosystem change, 2) better understanding of ecosystem process and function, 3) human dimensions of ecosystem science, and 4) problem-solving/applied research.  Under “capacity building,” key topics included: holistic approaches, cross-disciplinary collaboration, public support for research, data, training, and technology investment.  Under “barriers” key topics included: limitations in theoretical thinking, insufficient funding/support,  fragmentation across discipline,  data access and data synthesis.  We are now engaged in “key informant” interviews to assess the quality and scope of our synthesis effort.